[PATCH v1 1/2] KVM: PPC: Book3S HV: Add support for H_RPT_INVALIDATE (nested case only)

[Paul Mackerras]

On Fri, Dec 11, 2020 at 12:16:39PM +1100, David Gibson wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 10, 2020 at 09:54:18AM +0530, Bharata B Rao wrote:
> > On Wed, Dec 09, 2020 at 03:15:42PM +1100, Paul Mackerras wrote:
> > > On Mon, Oct 19, 2020 at 04:56:41PM +0530, Bharata B Rao wrote:
> > > > Implements H_RPT_INVALIDATE hcall and supports only nested case
> > > > currently.
> > > > 
> > > > A KVM capability KVM_CAP_RPT_INVALIDATE is added to indicate the
> > > > support for this hcall.
> > > 
> > > I have a couple of questions about this patch:
> > > 
> > > 1. Is this something that is useful today, or is it something that may
> > > become useful in the future depending on future product plans? In
> > > other words, what advantage is there to forcing L2 guests to use this
> > > hcall instead of doing tlbie themselves?
> > 
> > H_RPT_INVALIDATE will replace the use of the existing H_TLB_INVALIDATE
> > for nested partition scoped invalidations. Implementations that want to
> > off-load invalidations to the host (when GTSE=0) would have to bother
> > about only one hcall (H_RPT_INVALIDATE)
> > 
> > > 
> > > 2. Why does it need to be added to the default-enabled hcall list?
> > > 
> > > There is a concern that if this is enabled by default we could get the
> > > situation where a guest using it gets migrated to a host that doesn't
> > > support it, which would be bad.  That is the reason that all new
> > > things like this are disabled by default and only enabled by userspace
> > > (i.e. QEMU) in situations where we can enforce that it is available on
> > > all hosts to which the VM might be migrated.
> > 
> > As you suggested privately, I am thinking of falling back to
> > H_TLB_INVALIDATE in case where this new hcall fails due to not being
> > present. That should address the migration case that you mention
> > above. With that and leaving the new hcall enabled by default
> > is good okay?
> 
> No.  Assuming that guests will have some fallback is not how the qemu
> migration compatibility model works.  If we specify an old machine
> type, we need to provide the same environment that the older host
> would have.

I misunderstood what this patchset is about when I first looked at
it.  H_RPT_INVALIDATE has two separate functions; one is to do
process-scoped invalidations for a guest when LPCR[GTSE] = 0 (i.e.,
when the guest is not permitted to do tlbie itself), and the other is
to do partition-scoped invalidations that an L1 hypervisor needs to do
on behalf of an L2 guest.  The second function is a replacement and
standardization of the existing H_TLB_INVALIDATE which was introduced
with the nested virtualization code (using a hypercall number from the
platform-specific range).

This patchset only implements the second function, not the first.  The
first function remains unimplemented in KVM at present.

Given that QEMU will need changes for a guest to be able to exploit
H_RPT_INVALIDATE (at a minimum, adding a device tree property), it
doesn't seem onerous for QEMU to have to enable the hcall with
KVM_CAP_PPC_ENABLE_HCALL.  I think that the control on whether the
hcall is handled in KVM along with the control on nested hypervisor
function provides adequate control for QEMU without needing a writable
capability.  The read-only capability to say whether the hcall exists
does seem useful.

Given all that, I'm veering towards taking Bharata's patchset pretty
much as-is, minus the addition of H_RPT_INVALIDATE to the
default-enabled set.

Paul.