[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [PATCH v4 17/21] i386: support 'hv-passthrough, hv-feature=off' on t
From: |
David Edmondson |
Subject: |
Re: [PATCH v4 17/21] i386: support 'hv-passthrough, hv-feature=off' on the command line |
Date: |
Fri, 12 Feb 2021 09:29:44 +0000 |
On Friday, 2021-02-12 at 09:49:46 +01, Vitaly Kuznetsov wrote:
> Igor Mammedov <imammedo@redhat.com> writes:
>
>> On Wed, 10 Feb 2021 17:40:29 +0100
>> Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@redhat.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Currently, we support 'hv-passthrough,hv-feature=on' enablement, this
>>> is supposed to mean "hv-feature is mandatory, don't start without it". Add
>>> support for 'hv-passthrough,hv-feature=off' meaning "enable everything
>>> supported by the host except for hv-feature".
>>>
>>> While on it, make 'hv-passthrough' parse semantics in-line with other
>>> options in qemu: when specified, it overrides what was previously set with
>>> what's supported by the host. This can later be modified with
>>> 'hv-feature=on'/
>>> 'hv-feature=off'.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@redhat.com>
>>> ---
>>> target/i386/cpu.c | 28 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
>>> target/i386/kvm/kvm.c | 4 ++++
>>> 2 files changed, 31 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/target/i386/cpu.c b/target/i386/cpu.c
>>> index e8a004c39d04..f8df2caed779 100644
>>> --- a/target/i386/cpu.c
>>> +++ b/target/i386/cpu.c
>>> @@ -4725,6 +4725,29 @@ static void x86_hv_stimer_direct_set(Object *obj,
>>> bool value, Error **errp)
>>> x86_hv_feature_set(obj, value, HYPERV_FEAT_STIMER_DIRECT);
>>> }
>>>
>>> +static bool x86_hv_passthrough_get(Object *obj, Error **errp)
>>> +{
>>> + X86CPU *cpu = X86_CPU(obj);
>>> +
>>> + return cpu->hyperv_passthrough;
>>> +}
>>> +
>>> +static void x86_hv_passthrough_set(Object *obj, bool value, Error **errp)
>>> +{
>>> + X86CPU *cpu = X86_CPU(obj);
>>> +
>>> + cpu->hyperv_passthrough = value;
>>> +
>>> + /* hv-passthrough overrides everything with what's supported by the
>>> host */
>>> + if (value) {
>>> + cpu->hyperv_features = 0;
>>> + cpu->hyperv_features_on = 0;
>>> + cpu->hyperv_features_off = 0;
>>
>> why do we have _on|_off fields?
>>
>
> You mean 'why do we have them at all' or 'why do we reset them here'?
> For the former, we need to distinguish between
> 'hv-passthroug,hv-feature=off' and just 'hv-passthrough';
> 'hv-passthrough,hv-evmcs=on' and just 'hv-passthrough'. For the later,
> I'd like to make the samentics you've asked for:
> 'hv-feature,hv-passthrough' == 'hv-passthrough'
> (though I still see it as a gotcha for an unprepared user)
Either approach will confuse *someone*, I think.
This way at least behaves better if someone/something is composing the
feature strings via concatenation.
>>> + }
>>> +
>>> + return;
>>> +}
>>> +
>>> /* Generic getter for "feature-words" and "filtered-features" properties */
>>> static void x86_cpu_get_feature_words(Object *obj, Visitor *v,
>>> const char *name, void *opaque,
>>> @@ -7281,7 +7304,6 @@ static Property x86_cpu_properties[] = {
>>> HYPERV_SPINLOCK_NEVER_NOTIFY),
>>> DEFINE_PROP_ON_OFF_AUTO("hv-no-nonarch-coresharing", X86CPU,
>>> hyperv_no_nonarch_cs, ON_OFF_AUTO_OFF),
>>> - DEFINE_PROP_BOOL("hv-passthrough", X86CPU, hyperv_passthrough, false),
>>>
>>> DEFINE_PROP_BOOL("check", X86CPU, check_cpuid, true),
>>> DEFINE_PROP_BOOL("enforce", X86CPU, enforce_cpuid, false),
>>> @@ -7460,6 +7482,10 @@ static void x86_cpu_common_class_init(ObjectClass
>>> *oc, void *data)
>>> x86_hv_stimer_direct_get,
>>> x86_hv_stimer_direct_set);
>>>
>>> + object_class_property_add_bool(oc, "hv-passthrough",
>>> + x86_hv_passthrough_get,
>>> + x86_hv_passthrough_set);
>>> +
>>> for (w = 0; w < FEATURE_WORDS; w++) {
>>> int bitnr;
>>> for (bitnr = 0; bitnr < 64; bitnr++) {
>>> diff --git a/target/i386/kvm/kvm.c b/target/i386/kvm/kvm.c
>>> index 30013f0d7cee..fca088d4d3b5 100644
>>> --- a/target/i386/kvm/kvm.c
>>> +++ b/target/i386/kvm/kvm.c
>>> @@ -1153,6 +1153,10 @@ static int hv_cpuid_check_and_set(CPUState *cs, int
>>> feature, Error **errp)
>>> return 0;
>>> }
>>>
>>> + if (cpu->hyperv_passthrough && (cpu->hyperv_features_off &
>>> BIT(feature))) {
>>> + return 0;
>>> + }
>>> +
>>> deps = kvm_hyperv_properties[feature].dependencies;
>>> while (deps) {
>>> dep_feat = ctz64(deps);
>>
>
> --
> Vitaly
dme.
--
J'aurais toujours faim de toi.
- Re: [PATCH v4 16/21] i386: track explicit 'hv-*' features enablement/disablement, (continued)
- [PATCH v4 15/21] i386: expand Hyper-V features during CPU feature expansion time, Vitaly Kuznetsov, 2021/02/10
- [PATCH v4 14/21] i386: use global kvm_state in hyperv_enabled() check, Vitaly Kuznetsov, 2021/02/10
- [PATCH v4 21/21] qtest/hyperv: Introduce a simple hyper-v test, Vitaly Kuznetsov, 2021/02/10
- [PATCH v4 20/21] i386: provide simple 'hv-default=on' option, Vitaly Kuznetsov, 2021/02/10
- [PATCH v4 17/21] i386: support 'hv-passthrough, hv-feature=off' on the command line, Vitaly Kuznetsov, 2021/02/10
- [PATCH v4 18/21] i386: be more picky about implicit 'hv-evmcs' enablement, Vitaly Kuznetsov, 2021/02/10
- [PATCH v4 19/21] i386: introduce kvm_hv_evmcs_available(), Vitaly Kuznetsov, 2021/02/10
- Re: [PATCH v4 00/19] i386: KVM: expand Hyper-V features early and provide simple 'hv-default=on' option, Daniel P . Berrangé, 2021/02/10