Peter Maydell <[email protected]> writes: > On Wed, 11 Mar 2026 at 09:54, Alyssa Ross <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> If I create a machine with more CPUs than KVM supports, but specify >> multiple accelerator options, QEMU will fall back to the next >> accelerator. This is great, because if I've explicitly specified >> multiple accelerators, I've told QEMU I'm fine with any of them being >> used to provide the machine I want. >> >> When I create a machine with nested virtualization enabled, though, >> this doesn't happen. KVM often doesn't support it, but TCG always >> does. The nice thing to do would be for QEMU to fall back to TCG if >> KVM can't provide, like it does when too many CPUs are requested. >> This patch adjusts the behaviour to do that. >> >> This is very helpful for OS development scripts that run an OS in QEMU >> — I want everybody to be able to run the script, always with >> virtualization enabled because the OS requires it, but for it to take >> advantage of KVM acceleration when available. >> >> Signed-off-by: Alyssa Ross <[email protected]> >> --- >> hw/arm/virt.c | 6 ------ >> target/arm/kvm.c | 8 ++++++++ >> 2 files changed, 8 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/hw/arm/virt.c b/hw/arm/virt.c >> index 7456614d05..0b63b2eac3 100644 >> --- a/hw/arm/virt.c >> +++ b/hw/arm/virt.c >> @@ -2372,12 +2372,6 @@ static void machvirt_init(MachineState *machine) >> exit(1); >> } >> >> - if (vms->virt && kvm_enabled() && !kvm_arm_el2_supported()) { >> - error_report("mach-virt: host kernel KVM does not support providing >> " >> - "Virtualization extensions to the guest CPU"); >> - exit(1); >> - } >> - >> if (vms->virt && !kvm_enabled() && !tcg_enabled() && !qtest_enabled()) { >> error_report("mach-virt: %s does not support providing " >> "Virtualization extensions to the guest CPU", >> diff --git a/target/arm/kvm.c b/target/arm/kvm.c >> index d4a68874b8..20dcc6a820 100644 >> --- a/target/arm/kvm.c >> +++ b/target/arm/kvm.c >> @@ -615,6 +615,14 @@ int kvm_arch_init(MachineState *ms, KVMState *s) >> ret = -EINVAL; >> } >> >> + if (object_property_find(OBJECT(ms), "virtualization") && >> + object_property_get_bool(OBJECT(ms), "virtualization", NULL) && >> + !kvm_arm_el2_supported()) { >> + error_report("Using ARM nested virtualization with KVM requires " >> + "a host kernel with KVM_CAP_ARM_EL2"); >> + ret = -EINVAL; >> + } > > Looking a bit closer at this, it's a bit awkward that we're > looking at a machine property in generic target/arm code. > There is no guarantee that the machine is "virt" or that every > KVM-supporting machine has a "virtualization" property, and > the target/ code isn't really supposed to do board-specific stuff. > > The board-independent way to say "are we trying to enable EL2" is > to look at the CPU property has_el2. But the CPU isn't created at > this point, so it's too early to do that here. > > Similar things where the early accelerator code wants information > from the board we have handled with a method in MachineClass, > like get_physical_address_range. We could do that here, but > maybe it's a bit over-engineered? IDK.
What do you envisage this looking like for other platforms? Something I considered when working on this patch was moving "virtualization" from a machine to an accelerator property, but I ran into the problem that such a property isn't exposed on e.g. x86_64 as far as I can tell. This MachineState method would have the same problem.
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
