Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-106471-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 147.75.199.223 as permitted sender) client-ip=147.75.199.223;
Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2024 17:41:12 +0000
Message-ID: <86ttl3zbd3.wl-maz@kernel.org>
From: Marc Zyngier <maz@kernel.org>
To: David Woodhouse <dwmw2@infradead.org>
Cc: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
	kvm@vger.kernel.org,
	Paolo Bonzini
 <pbonzini@redhat.com>,
	Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>,
	Oliver Upton
 <oliver.upton@linux.dev>,
	James Morse <james.morse@arm.com>,
	Suzuki K
 Poulose <suzuki.poulose@arm.com>,
	Zenghui Yu <yuzenghui@huawei.com>,
	Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
	Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>,
	Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>,
	Lorenzo Pieralisi
 <lpieralisi@kernel.org>,
	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@kernel.org>,
	Len Brown
 <len.brown@intel.com>,
	Pavel Machek <pavel@ucw.cz>,
	Mostafa Saleh
 <smostafa@google.com>,
	Jean-Philippe Brucker <jean-philippe@linaro.org>,
	linux-doc@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	kvmarm@lists.linux.dev,
	linux-pm@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v2 0/4] arm64: Add PSCI v1.3 SYSTEM_OFF2 support for hibernation
In-Reply-To: <eb9215850e8231ab8ef75f523925be671cc6f5a0.camel@infradead.org>
References: <20240318164646.1010092-1-dwmw2@infradead.org>
	<86wmpzzdep.wl-maz@kernel.org>
	<eb9215850e8231ab8ef75f523925be671cc6f5a0.camel@infradead.org>
User-Agent: Wanderlust/2.15.9 (Almost Unreal) SEMI-EPG/1.14.7 (Harue)
 FLIM-LB/1.14.9 (=?UTF-8?B?R29qxY0=?=) APEL-LB/10.8 EasyPG/1.0.0 Emacs/29.1
 (aarch64-unknown-linux-gnu) MULE/6.0 (HANACHIRUSATO)
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0 (generated by SEMI-EPG 1.14.7 - "Harue")
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII

On Mon, 18 Mar 2024 17:26:07 +0000,
David Woodhouse <dwmw2@infradead.org> wrote:
> 
> [1  <text/plain; UTF-8 (quoted-printable)>]
> On Mon, 2024-03-18 at 16:57 +0000, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> > 
> > > 
> > > There *is* a way for a VMM to opt *out* of newer PSCI versions... by 
> > > setting a per-vCPU "special" register that actually ends up setting the 
> > > PSCI version KVM-wide. Quite why this isn't just a simple KVM_CAP, I 
> > > have no idea.
> > 
> > Because the expectations are that the VMM can blindly save/restore the
> > guest's state, including the PSCI version, and restore that blindly.
> > KVM CAPs are just a really bad design pattern for this sort of things.
> 
> Hm, am I missing something here? Does the *guest* get to set the PSCI
> version somehow, and opt into the latest version that it understands
> regardless of what the firmware/host can support?

No. The *VMM* sets the PSCI version by writing to a pseudo register.
It means that when the guest migrates, the VMM saves and restores that
version, and the guest doesn't see any change.

The host firmware has nothing to do with it, obviously. This is all
about KVM's own implementation of the "firmware", as seen by the guest.

> Because if not, surely it's just part of the basic shape of the
> machine, like "how many vCPUs does it have". You don't need to be able
> to query it back again.

Nobody needs to do this.

> I don't think we ever aspired to be able to hand an arbitrary KVM fd to
> a userspace VMM and have the VMM be able to drive that VM without
> having any a priori context, did we?

Arbitrary? No. This is actually very specific and pretty well
documented.

Also, to answer your question about why we treat 0.1 differently from
0.2+: 0.1 didn't specify the PSCI SMC/HCR encoding, meaning that KVM
implemented something that was never fully specified. The VMM has to
provide firmware tables that describe that. With 0.2+, there is a
standard encoding for all functions, and the VMM doesn't have to
provide the encoding to the guest.

	M.

-- 
Without deviation from the norm, progress is not possible.