Re: [RFC 3/3] x68: acpi: trigger SMI before scanning for hotplugged CPUs

[Laszlo Ersek]

On 07/15/20 15:43, Igor Mammedov wrote:
> On Wed, 15 Jul 2020 14:38:00 +0200
> Laszlo Ersek <lersek@redhat.com> wrote:
> 
>> On 07/14/20 17:19, Igor Mammedov wrote:
>>> On Tue, 14 Jul 2020 14:41:28 +0200
>>> Laszlo Ersek <lersek@redhat.com> wrote:
>>>   
>>>> On 07/14/20 14:28, Laszlo Ersek wrote:  
>>>>> (CC'ing Peter Krempa due to virsh setvcpu (singular) / setvcpus (plural)
>>>>> references)
>>>>>
>>>>> On 07/10/20 18:17, Igor Mammedov wrote:    
>>>>>> In case firmware has negotiated CPU hotplug SMI feature, generate
>>>>>> AML to describe SMI IO port region and send SMI to firmware
>>>>>> on each CPU hotplug SCI.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It might be not really usable, but should serve as a starting point to
>>>>>> discuss how better to deal with split hotplug sequence during hot-add
>>>>>> (
>>>>>> ex scenario where it will break is:
>>>>>>    hot-add    
>>>>>>       -> (QEMU) add CPU in hotplug regs
>>>>>>       -> (QEMU) SCI    
>>>>>>            -1-> (OS) scan
>>>>>>                -1-> (OS) SMI
>>>>>>                -1-> (FW) pull in CPU1 ***
>>>>>>                -1-> (OS) start iterating hotplug regs
>>>>>>    hot-add    
>>>>>>       -> (QEMU) add CPU in hotplug regs
>>>>>>       -> (QEMU) SCI    
>>>>>>             -2-> (OS) scan (blocked on mutex till previous scan is 
>>>>>> finished)
>>>>>>                -1-> (OS) 1st added CPU1 send device check event -> 
>>>>>> INIT/SIPI
>>>>>>                -1-> (OS) 1st added CPU2 send device check event -> 
>>>>>> INIT/SIPI
>>>>>>                        that's where it explodes, since FW didn't see CPU2
>>>>>>                        when SMI was called
>>>>>> )
>>>>>>
>>>>>> hot remove will throw in yet another set of problems, so lets discuss
>>>>>> both here and see if we can  really share hotplug registers block between
>>>>>> FW and AML or we should do something else with it.    
>>>>>
>>>>> This issue is generally triggered by management applications such as
>>>>> libvirt that issue device_add commands in quick succession. For libvirt,
>>>>> the command is "virsh setvcpus" (plural) with multiple CPUs specified
>>>>> for plugging. The singular "virsh setvcpu" command, which is more
>>>>> friendly towards guest NUMA, does not run into the symptom.
>>>>>
>>>>> The scope of the scan method lock is not large enough, with SMI in the
>>>>> picture.
>>>>>
>>>>> I suggest that we not uproot the existing AML code or the hotplug
>>>>> register block. Instead, I suggest that we add serialization at a higher
>>>>> level, with sufficient scope.
>>>>>
>>>>> QEMU:
>>>>>
>>>>> - introduce a new flag standing for "CPU plug operation in progress"
>>>>>
>>>>> - if ICH9_LPC_SMI_F_BROADCAST_BIT has been negotiated:
>>>>>
>>>>>   - "device_add" and "device_del" should enforce
>>>>>     ICH9_LPC_SMI_F_CPU_HOTPLUG_BIT and
>>>>>     ICH9_LPC_SMI_F_CPU_HOT_UNPLUG_BIT, respectively
>>>>>
>>>>>   - both device_add and device_del (for VCPUs) should set check the
>>>>>     "in progress" flag.
>>>>>
>>>>>     - If set, reject the request synchronously
>>>>>
>>>>>     - Otherwise, set the flag, and commence the operation
>>>>>
>>>>>   - in cpu_hotplug_wr(), where we emit the ACPI_DEVICE_OST event with
>>>>>     qapi_event_send_acpi_device_ost(), clear the "in-progress" flag.
>>>>>
>>>>> - If QEMU executes the QMP command processing and the cpu_hotplug_wr()
>>>>> function on different (host OS) threads, then perhaps we should use an
>>>>> atomic type for the flag. (Not sure about locking between QEMU threads,
>>>>> sorry.) I don't really expect race conditions, but in case we ever get
>>>>> stuck with the flag, we should make sure that the stuck state is "in
>>>>> progress", and not "not in progress". (The former state can prevent
>>>>> further plug operations, but cannot cause the guest to lose state.)    
>>>>
>>>> Furthermore, the "CPU plug operation in progress" flag should be:
>>>> - either migrated,
>>>> - or a migration blocker.
>>>>
>>>> Because on the destination host, device_add should be possible if and
>>>> only if the plug operation completed (either still on the source host,
>>>> or on the destination host).  
>>>
>>> I have a way more simple alternative idea, which doesn't involve libvirt.
>>>
>>> We can change AML to
>>>   1. cache hotplugged CPUs from controller
>>>   2. send SMI
>>>   3. send Notify event to OS to online cached CPUs
>>> this way we never INIT/SIPI cpus that FW hasn't seen yet
>>> as for FW, it can relocate extra CPU that arrived after #1
>>> it won't cause any harm as on the next SCI AML will pick up those
>>> CPUs and SMI upcall will be just NOP.
>>>
>>> I'll post a patch here on top of this series for you to try
>>> (without any of your comments addressed yet, as it's already written
>>> and I was testing it for a while to make sure it won't explode
>>> with various windows versions)  
>>
>> Sounds good, I'll be happy to test it.
>>
>> Indeed "no event" is something that the fw deals with gracefully. (IIRC
>> I wanted to cover a "spurious SMI" explicitly.)
> is it possible to distinguish "spurious SMI" vs hotplug SMI,
> if yes then we probably do not care about any other SMIs except hotplug one.

Sorry, I was unclear. By "spurious SMI", I meant that the hotplug SMI
(command value 4) is raised, but then the hotplug register block reports
no CPUs with pending events. The fw code handles that.

> 
>> It didn't occur to me that you could dynamically size e.g. a package
>> object in AML. Based on my reading of the ACPI spec, "VarPackageOp" can
>> take a *runtime* "NumElements", so if you did two loops, the first loop
>> could count the pending stuff, and then a VarPackageOp could be used
>> with just the right NumElements... Anyway, I digress :)
> 
> well, it's mine field since Windows implement only a subset of spec
> and VarPackageOp is not avalable on all version that support hotplug.

Ugh. :/

> I think, I've narrowed language down to supported subset, so I need
> to complete another round of testing to see if I didn't break anything
> by accident.

Thanks.
Laszlo

>  
>>>   
>>>> I guess that the "migration blocker" option is easier.
>>>>
>>>> Anyway I assume this is already handled with memory hotplug somehow
>>>> (i.e., migration attempt between device_add and ACPI_DEVICE_OST).  
>>>
>>> Thanks for comments,
>>> I'll need some time to ponder on other comments and do some
>>> palaeontology research to answer questions
>>> (aka. I need to make up excuses for the code I wrote :) )  
>>
>> haha, thanks :)
>> Laszlo
>