[PATCH v3] powerpc/pseries: read the lpar name from the firmware

[Nathan Lynch]

Laurent Dufour <ldufour at linux.ibm.com> writes:
> On 08/12/2021, 16:21:29, Nathan Lynch wrote:
>> Laurent Dufour <ldufour at linux.ibm.com> writes:
>>> On 07/12/2021, 18:07:50, Nathan Lynch wrote:
>>>> Laurent Dufour <ldufour at linux.ibm.com> writes:
>>>>> On 07/12/2021, 15:32:39, Nathan Lynch wrote:
>>>>>> Is there a reasonable fallback for VMs where this parameter doesn't
>>>>>> exist? PowerVM partitions should always have it, but what do we want the
>>>>>> behavior to be on other hypervisors?
>>>>>
>>>>> In that case, there is no value displayed in the /proc/powerpc/lparcfg and
>>>>> the lparstat -i command will fall back to the device tree value. I can't
>>>>> see any valid reason to report the value defined in the device tree
>>>>> here.
>>>>
>>>> Here's a valid reason :-)
>>>>
>>>> lparstat isn't the only possible consumer of the interface, and the
>>>> 'ibm,partition-name' property and the dynamic system parameter clearly
>>>> serve a common purpose. 'ibm,partition-name' is provided by qemu.
>>>
>>> If the hypervisor is not providing this value, this is not the goal of this
>>> interface to fetch it from the device tree.
>>>
>>> Any consumer should be able to fall back on the device tree value, and
>>> there is no added value to do such a trick in the kernel when it can be
>>> done in the user space.
>> 
>> There is value in imposing a level of abstraction so that the semantics
>> are:
>> 
>> * Report the name assigned to the guest by the hosting environment, if
>>   available
>> 
>> as opposed to
>> 
>> * Return the string returned by a RTAS call to ibm,get-system-parameter
>>   with token 55, if implemented
>> 
>> The benefit is that consumers of lparcfg do not have to be coded with
>> the knowledge that "if a partition_name= line is absent, the
>> ibm,get-system-parameter RTAS call must have failed, so now I should
>> read /sys/firmware/devicetree/base/ibm,partition_name." That's the sort
>> of esoterica that is appropriate for the kernel to encapsulate.
>> 
>> And I'd say the effort involved (falling back to a root node property
>> lookup) is proportional to the benefit.
>> 
>
> I don't agree.
> From the kernel point of view, I can't see any benefit, this is adding more
> complexity to do in the kernel what can be done easily in user space.

Applying this logic, I don't see how adding this to lparcfg would be
justified at all, because user space can already get at the parameter
using the privileged rtas syscall. Publish it to unprivileged programs
over D-Bus or something. That would minimize complexity for the kernel.