Re: [PATCH v9 21/22] KVM: s390: CPU model support for AP virtualization

[Pierre Morel]

On 23/08/2018 09:48, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> > > >
> > > I really wonder if we should also export the APXA facility.
> >
> > Given this comment is made within the context of the
> > FACILITIES_KVM_CPUMODEL I might point out that APXA is not
> > indicated by a facilities bit. It is indicated by a bit in
> > the QCI control block returned from the PQAP(QCI)
> > instruction to indicate that APXA is installed on all CPUs.
> >
> > > We can probe and allow that CPU feature. However, we cannot disable it
> > > (as of now).
> >
> > Given this patch series implements passthrough devices,
> > the output of the PQAP(QCI) will always be from a real
> > device - i.e., there will be no way to disable it.
>
> see below
>
> > > We have other CPU features where it is the same case (basically all
> > > subfunctions). See kvm_s390_get_processor_subfunc(). We probe them and
> > > export them, but support to disable them has never been implemented.
> > >
> > > On a high level, we could then e.g. deny to start a QEMU guest if APXA
> > > is available but has been disabled. (until we know that disabling it
> > > actually works - if ever).
> > >
> > > This helps to catch nasty migration bugs (e.g. APXA suddenly
> > > disappearing). Although unlikely, definitely possible.
> >
> > Migration of AP devices is not supported by this patch series, so this
> > should
> > not be an issue.
>
> Might not be a problem now, but could be later. As I said in a different
> reply, the CPU model in QEMU does not care about KVM.
>
> I want the QEMU CPU model and the KVM interfaces to be clean and future
> proof. That's why my opinion is to handle PQAP(QCI) just like all the
> other "feature blocks" we already have.

Don't you mix with the TAPQ instruction which has
a T bit to specify interception.
It indeed is not in the subfunction list even it
has a T bit to indicate interception.

TAPQ-t is indicated through the APFT facility.

We can use this bit as an indication of the presence
of APXA, the documentation mention that both are implemented together.

regards,
Pierre


--
Pierre Morel
Linux/KVM/QEMU in BÃblingen - Germany