Hi Dave,
On 18/02/2019 19:52, Dave Martin wrote:
> Due to the way the effective SVE vector length is controlled and
> trapped at different exception levels, certain mismatches in the
> sets of vector lengths supported by different physical CPUs in the
> system may prevent straightforward virtualisation of SVE at parity
> with the host.
>
> This patch analyses the extent to which SVE can be virtualised
> safely without interfering with migration of vcpus between physical
> CPUs, and rejects late secondary CPUs that would erode the
> situation further.
>
> It is left up to KVM to decide what to do with this information.
>
> Signed-off-by: Dave Martin <dave.mar...@arm.com>
> ---
> arch/arm64/include/asm/fpsimd.h | 1 +
> arch/arm64/kernel/cpufeature.c | 2 +-
> arch/arm64/kernel/fpsimd.c | 86
> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-------
> 3 files changed, 73 insertions(+), 16 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/asm/fpsimd.h b/arch/arm64/include/asm/fpsimd.h
> index dd1ad39..964adc9 100644
> --- a/arch/arm64/include/asm/fpsimd.h
> +++ b/arch/arm64/include/asm/fpsimd.h
> @@ -87,6 +87,7 @@ extern void sve_kernel_enable(const struct
> arm64_cpu_capabilities *__unused);
> extern u64 read_zcr_features(void);
>
> extern int __ro_after_init sve_max_vl;
> +extern int __ro_after_init sve_max_virtualisable_vl;
>
> #ifdef CONFIG_ARM64_SVE
>
> diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/cpufeature.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/cpufeature.c
> index f6d84e2..5eaacb4 100644
> --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/cpufeature.c
> +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/cpufeature.c
> @@ -1825,7 +1825,7 @@ static void verify_sve_features(void)
> unsigned int len = zcr & ZCR_ELx_LEN_MASK;
>
> if (len < safe_len || sve_verify_vq_map()) {
> - pr_crit("CPU%d: SVE: required vector length(s) missing\n",
> + pr_crit("CPU%d: SVE: vector length support mismatch\n",
> smp_processor_id());
> cpu_die_early();
> }
> diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/fpsimd.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/fpsimd.c
> index 62c37f0..64729e2 100644
> --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/fpsimd.c
> +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/fpsimd.c
> @@ -18,6 +18,7 @@
> */
>
> #include <linux/bitmap.h>
> +#include <linux/bitops.h>
> #include <linux/bottom_half.h>
> #include <linux/bug.h>
> #include <linux/cache.h>
> @@ -48,6 +49,7 @@
> #include <asm/sigcontext.h>
> #include <asm/sysreg.h>
> #include <asm/traps.h>
> +#include <asm/virt.h>
>
> #define FPEXC_IOF (1 << 0)
> #define FPEXC_DZF (1 << 1)
> @@ -130,14 +132,18 @@ static int sve_default_vl = -1;
>
> /* Maximum supported vector length across all CPUs (initially poisoned) */
> int __ro_after_init sve_max_vl = SVE_VL_MIN;
> +int __ro_after_init sve_max_virtualisable_vl = SVE_VL_MIN;
> /* Set of available vector lengths, as vq_to_bit(vq): */
> static __ro_after_init DECLARE_BITMAP(sve_vq_map, SVE_VQ_MAX);
> +/* Set of vector lengths present on at least one cpu: */
> +static __ro_after_init DECLARE_BITMAP(sve_vq_partial_map, SVE_VQ_MAX);
> static void __percpu *efi_sve_state;
>
> #else /* ! CONFIG_ARM64_SVE */
>
> /* Dummy declaration for code that will be optimised out: */
> extern __ro_after_init DECLARE_BITMAP(sve_vq_map, SVE_VQ_MAX);
> +extern __ro_after_init DECLARE_BITMAP(sve_vq_partial_map, SVE_VQ_MAX);
> extern void __percpu *efi_sve_state;
>
> #endif /* ! CONFIG_ARM64_SVE */
> @@ -623,12 +629,6 @@ int sve_get_current_vl(void)
> return sve_prctl_status(0);
> }
>
> -/*
> - * Bitmap for temporary storage of the per-CPU set of supported vector
> lengths
> - * during secondary boot.
> - */
> -static DECLARE_BITMAP(sve_secondary_vq_map, SVE_VQ_MAX);
> -
> static void sve_probe_vqs(DECLARE_BITMAP(map, SVE_VQ_MAX))
> {
> unsigned int vq, vl;
> @@ -650,6 +650,7 @@ static void sve_probe_vqs(DECLARE_BITMAP(map, SVE_VQ_MAX))
> void __init sve_init_vq_map(void)
> {
> sve_probe_vqs(sve_vq_map);
> + bitmap_copy(sve_vq_partial_map, sve_vq_map, SVE_VQ_MAX);
> }
>
> /*
> @@ -658,25 +659,58 @@ void __init sve_init_vq_map(void)
> */
> void sve_update_vq_map(void)
> {
> - sve_probe_vqs(sve_secondary_vq_map);
> - bitmap_and(sve_vq_map, sve_vq_map, sve_secondary_vq_map, SVE_VQ_MAX);
> + DECLARE_BITMAP(tmp_map, SVE_VQ_MAX);
> +
> + sve_probe_vqs(tmp_map);
> + bitmap_and(sve_vq_map, sve_vq_map, tmp_map, SVE_VQ_MAX);
> + bitmap_or(sve_vq_partial_map, sve_vq_partial_map, tmp_map, SVE_VQ_MAX);
> }
>
> /* Check whether the current CPU supports all VQs in the committed set */
> int sve_verify_vq_map(void)
> {
> - int ret = 0;
> + DECLARE_BITMAP(tmp_map, SVE_VQ_MAX);
> + unsigned long b;
>
> - sve_probe_vqs(sve_secondary_vq_map);
> - bitmap_andnot(sve_secondary_vq_map, sve_vq_map, sve_secondary_vq_map,
> - SVE_VQ_MAX);
> - if (!bitmap_empty(sve_secondary_vq_map, SVE_VQ_MAX)) {
> + sve_probe_vqs(tmp_map);
> +
> + bitmap_complement(tmp_map, tmp_map, SVE_VQ_MAX);
> + if (bitmap_intersects(tmp_map, sve_vq_map, SVE_VQ_MAX)) {
> pr_warn("SVE: cpu%d: Required vector length(s) missing\n",
> smp_processor_id());
> - ret = -EINVAL;
> + return -EINVAL;
> }
>
> - return ret;
> + if (!IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_KVM) || !is_hyp_mode_available())
> + return 0;
> +
> + /*
> + * For KVM, it is necessary to ensure that this CPU doesn't
> + * support any vector length that guests may have probed as
> + * unsupported.
> + */
> +
> + /* Recover the set of supported VQs: */
> + bitmap_complement(tmp_map, tmp_map, SVE_VQ_MAX);
> + /* Find VQs supported that are not globally supported: */
> + bitmap_andnot(tmp_map, tmp_map, sve_vq_map, SVE_VQ_MAX);
> +
> + /* Find the lowest such VQ, if any: */
> + b = find_last_bit(tmp_map, SVE_VQ_MAX);
> + if (b >= SVE_VQ_MAX)
> + return 0; /* no mismatches */
> +
> + /*
> + * Mismatches above sve_max_virtualisable_vl are fine, since
> + * no guest is allowed to configure ZCR_EL2.LEN to exceed this:
> + */
> + if (sve_vl_from_vq(bit_to_vq(b)) <= sve_max_virtualisable_vl) {
> + pr_warn("SVE: cpu%d: Unsupported vector length(s) present\n",
Nit: might be good to specify that the vector length is unsupported for
virtualisation.
Also, since KVM is the one deciding what to do with the information,
should we have a warning here? But I can understand that knowing which
CPUs are introducing unsupported vector length, maybe using pr_devel()
instead of pr_warn()
In any case, the logic looks good to me:
Reviewed-by: Julien Thierry <julien.thie...@arm.com>
Cheers,
--
Julien Thierry
_______________________________________________
kvmarm mailing list
kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu
https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/kvmarm
