On Mon, Oct 24, 2016 at 03:44:01PM +0100, Alex Bennée wrote:
>
> Alex Bennée <alex.ben...@linaro.org> writes:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > In the MTTCG patch set one of the big patches is to remove the
> > requirement to hold the BQL while running code:
> >
> > tcg: drop global lock during TCG code execution
> >
> > And this broke the PPC code because emulate_ppc_hypercall can cause
> > changes to the global state. This function just calls spapr_hypercall()
> > and puts the results into the TCG register file. Normally
> > spapr_hypercall() is called under the BQL in KVM as
> > kvm_arch_handle_exit() does things with the BQL held.
> >
> > I blithely wrapped the called in a lock/unlock pair only to find the
> > ppc64 check builds failed as the hypercall was made during the
> > cc->do_interrupt() code which also holds the BQL.
> >
> > I'm a little confused by the nature of PPC hypercalls in TCG? Are they
> > not all detectable at code generation time? What is the case that causes
> > an exception to occur rather than the helper function doing the
> > hypercall?
> >
> > I guess it comes down to can I avoid doing:
> >
> > /* If we come via cc->do_interrupt BQL may already be held */
> > if (!qemu_mutex_iothread_locked()) {
> > g_mutex_lock_iothread();
> > env->gpr[3] = spapr_hypercall(cpu, env->gpr[3], &env->gpr[4]);
> > g_muetx_unlock_iothread();
> > } else {
> > env->gpr[3] = spapr_hypercall(cpu, env->gpr[3], &env->gpr[4]);
> > }
>
> Of course I mean:
>
> /* If we come via cc->do_interrupt BQL may already be held */
> if (!qemu_mutex_iothread_locked()) {
> qemu_mutex_lock_iothread();
> env->gpr[3] = spapr_hypercall(cpu, env->gpr[3], &env->gpr[4]);
> qemu_mutex_unlock_iothread();
> } else {
> env->gpr[3] = spapr_hypercall(cpu, env->gpr[3], &env->gpr[4]);
> }
>
> > Any thoughts?
So, I understand why the hypercall is being called from exception code
and therefore with the BQL held. On Power, the hypercall instruction
is the same as the guest-level system call instruction, just with a
flag bit set. System calls are, of course, treated as exceptions,
because they change the CPU's privilege mode. Likewise if we were
implementing a full host system (like the upcoming 'powernv' machine
type) we'd need to treat hypercalls as exceptions for the same reason.
We could detect hypercalls at translation time, but at present we
don't: we go into the exception path, then detect that it's a "level
1" (i.e. hypervisor) sc instruction and branch off to the hypercall
emulation code if that's been set up. It just seemed the simplet
approach at the time.
What I *don't* understand is how the hypercall code is ever being
invoked *without* the BQL. I grepped through and the only entry paths
I can see are the one in the exception handling and KVM.
Could you try to get a backtrace from the case where we're entering
the hypercall without the BQL?
--
David Gibson | I'll have my music baroque, and my code
david AT gibson.dropbear.id.au | minimalist, thank you. NOT _the_ _other_
| _way_ _around_!
http://www.ozlabs.org/~dgibson
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
