[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Qemu-ppc] [PATCH] pseries: Correct panic behaviour for pseries mach
From: |
David Gibson |
Subject: |
Re: [Qemu-ppc] [PATCH] pseries: Correct panic behaviour for pseries machine type |
Date: |
Thu, 8 Jun 2017 10:18:09 +1000 |
User-agent: |
Mutt/1.8.0 (2017-02-23) |
On Wed, Jun 07, 2017 at 07:10:55PM +0200, Thomas Huth wrote:
> On 07.06.2017 16:34, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> >
> >
> > On 07/06/2017 09:33, Thomas Huth wrote:
> >> On 07.06.2017 09:07, David Gibson wrote:
> >>> The pseries machine type doesn't usually use the 'pvpanic' device as such,
> >>> because it has a firmware/hypervisor facility with roughly the same
> >>> purpose. The 'ibm,os-term' RTAS call notifies the hypervisor that the
> >>> guest has crashed.
> >>>
> >>> Our implementation of this call was sending a GUEST_PANICKED qmp event;
> >>> however, it was not doing the other usual panic actions, making its
> >>> behaviour different from pvpanic for no good reason.
> >>>
> >>> To correct this, we should call qemu_system_guest_panicked() rather than
> >>> directly sending the panic event.
> >>>
> >>> Signed-off-by: David Gibson <address@hidden>
> >>> ---
> >>> hw/ppc/spapr_rtas.c | 7 ++-----
> >>> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
> >>>
> >>> diff --git a/hw/ppc/spapr_rtas.c b/hw/ppc/spapr_rtas.c
> >>> index 707c4d4..94a2799 100644
> >>> --- a/hw/ppc/spapr_rtas.c
> >>> +++ b/hw/ppc/spapr_rtas.c
> >>> @@ -293,12 +293,9 @@ static void rtas_ibm_os_term(PowerPCCPU *cpu,
> >>> target_ulong args,
> >>> uint32_t nret, target_ulong rets)
> >>> {
> >>> - target_ulong ret = 0;
> >>> + qemu_system_guest_panicked(NULL);
> >>>
> >>> - qapi_event_send_guest_panicked(GUEST_PANIC_ACTION_PAUSE, false, NULL,
> >>> - &error_abort);
> >>> -
> >>> - rtas_st(rets, 0, ret);
> >>> + rtas_st(rets, 0, RTAS_OUT_SUCCESS);
> >>> }
> >>>
> >>> static void rtas_set_power_level(PowerPCCPU *cpu, sPAPRMachineState
> >>> *spapr,
> >>>
> >>
> >> If I get that qemu_system_guest_panicked() function right, it will stop
> >> the VM, won't it? That contradicts the LoPAPR spec that says that the
> >> RTAS call returns if the "ibm,extended-os-term" property is available in
> >> the device tree.
> >
> > It does return... but only after the user starts the guest again with
> > "cont".
>
> OK, I guess that's enough to say that the "ibm,extended-os-term"
> property can stay ... so I think the patch is fine as it is right now.
So.. can I have an R-b?
--
David Gibson | I'll have my music baroque, and my code
david AT gibson.dropbear.id.au | minimalist, thank you. NOT _the_ _other_
| _way_ _around_!
http://www.ozlabs.org/~dgibson
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature