On Tue, 6 Oct 2020 19:03:28 +0200
Cédric Le Goater <c...@kaod.org> wrote:
> On 10/6/20 6:58 PM, Greg Kurz wrote:
> > On Mon, 5 Oct 2020 18:51:44 +0200
> > Cédric Le Goater <c...@kaod.org> wrote:
> >
> >> StoreEOI on POWER9 CPUs is racy because load-after-store ordering is
> >> not enforced.
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Cédric Le Goater <c...@kaod.org>
> >> ---
> >> hw/ppc/spapr_caps.c | 9 +++++++++
> >> 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+)
> >>
> >> diff --git a/hw/ppc/spapr_caps.c b/hw/ppc/spapr_caps.c
> >> index b0a9d0227db2..9251badbdc27 100644
> >> --- a/hw/ppc/spapr_caps.c
> >> +++ b/hw/ppc/spapr_caps.c
> >> @@ -549,6 +549,15 @@ static void cap_storeeoi_apply(SpaprMachineState
> >> *spapr, uint8_t val,
> >> error_setg(errp, "StoreEOI not supported by KVM");
> >> return;
> >> }
> >> +
> >> + /*
> >> + * load-after-store ordering is not enforced on POWER9 CPUs
> >> + * and StoreEOI can be racy.
> >> + */
> >> + if (!ppc_type_check_compat(machine->cpu_type,
> >> CPU_POWERPC_LOGICAL_3_10,
> >> + 0, spapr->max_compat_pvr)) {
> >> + warn_report("StoreEOI on a POWER9 CPU is unsafe on KVM.");
> >
The error message should mention XIVE KVM device actually since this only
depends on kernel-irqchip.
> > It all boils down to what "unsafe" really means here... if the outcome is
> > "very likely hang the guest" as soon as it starts doing I/O, shouldn't
> > we error out instead ? What is the motivation to use StoreEOI if the
> > processor doesn't really support it ?
>
> We use it in the lab on P9. We have never seen it failed even under stress.
> But there is a possible race in the logic.
>
> C.
Thinking again. P9 boston systems on the field only use emulated XIVE and
we certainly want to be able to migrate to P9 systems that use in-kernel
XIVE and vice-versa. So, even if StoreEOI is technically supported by
the emulated XIVE, maybe we should disallow it anyway ?
