Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20180115083335.GC21403@cbox>
References: <1510343650-23659-1-git-send-email-gengdongjiu@huawei.com>
 <1510343650-23659-8-git-send-email-gengdongjiu@huawei.com>
 <5A0B1334.7060500@arm.com> <4af78739-99da-4056-4db1-f80bfe11081a@huawei.com>
 <5A283F26.3020507@arm.com> <4b37e86d-eee3-c51e-eceb-5d0c7ad12886@huawei.com>
 <506cd212-3d16-ba2a-518f-34982bc162fc@huawei.com> <5A58F8E3.5060002@arm.com> <20180115083335.GC21403@cbox>
From:   gengdongjiu <gengdj.1984@gmail.com>
Date:   Sun, 21 Jan 2018 11:10:38 +0800
Message-ID: <CAMj-D2AypmVjSeimhqSEqhsrQfDwCeV+F85WYzLQ61crtCEhJg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v8 7/7] arm64: kvm: handle SError Interrupt by categorization
To:     Christoffer Dall <christoffer.dall@linaro.org>
Cc:     James Morse <james.morse@arm.com>,
        wuquanming <wuquanming@huawei.com>, linux-doc@vger.kernel.org,
        kvm@vger.kernel.org, Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@arm.com>,
        Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
        Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>, rjw@rjwysocki.net,
        linux@armlinux.org.uk, linuxarm@huawei.com,
        gengdongjiu <gengdongjiu@huawei.com>, linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org,
        bp@alien8.de, arm-mail-list <linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>,
        Huangshaoyu <huangshaoyu@huawei.com>, pbonzini@redhat.com,
        kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        devel@acpica.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

2018-01-15 16:33 GMT+08:00 Christoffer Dall <christoffer.dall@linaro.org>:
> On Fri, Jan 12, 2018 at 06:05:23PM +0000, James Morse wrote:
>> On 15/12/17 03:30, gengdongjiu wrote:
>> > On 2017/12/7 14:37, gengdongjiu wrote:
>
> [...]
>
>>
>> (I recall someone saying migration is needed for any new KVM/cpu features, but I
>> can't find the thread)
>>
>
> I don't know of any hard set-in-stone rule for this, but I have
> certainly argued that since migration is a popular technique in data
> centers and often a key motivation behind using virtual machines as it
> provides both load-balancing and high availability, we should think
> about migration support for all features and state.  Further, experience
> has shown that retroactively trying to support migration can result in
> really complex interfaces for saving/restoring state (see the ITS
> ordering requirements in
> Documentation/virtual/kvm/devices/arm-vgic-its.txt as an example) so
> thinking about this problem when introducing functionality is a good
> idea.
yes, agree it.

>
> Of course, if there are really good arguments for having some state that
> simply cannot be migrated, then that's fine, and we should just make
> sure that userspace (e.g. QEMU) and higher level components in the
> stack (libvirt, openstack, etc.) can detect this state being used, and
> ideally enable/disable it, so that it can predict that a particular VM
> cannot be migrated off a particular host, or between a particular set of
> two hosts.  As an example, migration is typically prohibited when using
> VFIO direct device assignment, but userspace etc. are already aware of
> this.
Ok,  I think this problem is similar to migrating a VM that uses an irqchip in
 userspace and has set the IRQ or FIQ lines using KVM_IRQ_LINE.

>
> As a final note, if we add support for some architectural feature, which
> may be present on some particular hardware and/or implementation, if the
> KVM support for said feature is automatically enabled (and not
> selectively from userspace), I would push back quite strongly on
> something that doesn't support migration, because it would effectively
> prevent migration of VMs on ARM.
Ok, got it.

>
> Thanks,
> -Christoffer
> _______________________________________________
> kvmarm mailing list
> kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu
> https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/kvmarm