Quoting Greg Kurz (2018-05-22 12:17:28)
> The spapr capability framework was introduced in QEMU 2.12. It allows
> to have an explicit control on how host features are exposed to the
> guest. This is especially needed to handle migration between hetero-
> geneous hosts (eg, POWER8 to POWER9). It is also used to expose fixes/
> workarounds against speculative execution vulnerabilities to guests.
> The framework was hence backported to QEMU 2.11.1, especially these
> commits:
>
> 0fac4aa93074 spapr: Add pseries-2.12 machine type
> 9070f408f491 spapr: Treat Hardware Transactional Memory (HTM) as an
> optional capability
>
> 0fac4aa93074 has the confusing effect of making pseries-2.12 the default
> machine type for QEMU 2.11.1, instead of the expected pseries-2.11. This
> patch changes the default machine back to pseries-2.11.
>
> Unfortunately, 9070f408f491 enforces the HTM capability for pseries-2.11.
> This isn't supported by TCG and breaks 'make check'. So this patch also
> adds a hack to turn HTM off when using TCG.
I noticed this ends up breaking TCG migration for 2.11.2 -> 2.12, I
get this on the target side even when specifying -machine
pseries-2.11,cap-htm=off for both ends:
qemu-system-ppc64: cap-htm higher level (1) in incoming stream than on
destination (0)
qemu-system-ppc64: error while loading state for instance 0x0 of device
'spapr'
qemu-system-ppc64: load of migration failed: Invalid argument
I'm not sure we care all that much about it but it's a regression from 2.11.1
at least. The main issue seems to be the default caps for 2.11.2 for TCG are
now different from 2.11 and 2.12+, but spapr_cap_##cap##_needed still assumes
everything is the same across all these versions and as such opts not to
migrate cap-htm=off, since that's the default for 2.11.2. This results in the
target assuming the source was using the default, which is cap-htm=on,
and since that disagrees with the spapr->eff we get a failure.
It seems spapr_cap_##cap##_needed needs to be fixed up to address that,
but I'm not sure how best to deal with backward compatibility in that case.
Any ideas? If it ends up being a trade-off I think forward compatibility is
more important.
>
> Signed-off-by: Greg Kurz <gr...@kaod.org>
> ---
> hw/ppc/spapr.c | 4 ++--
> hw/ppc/spapr_caps.c | 5 +++++
> 2 files changed, 7 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/hw/ppc/spapr.c b/hw/ppc/spapr.c
> index 1a2dd1f597d9..6499a867520f 100644
> --- a/hw/ppc/spapr.c
> +++ b/hw/ppc/spapr.c
> @@ -3820,7 +3820,7 @@ static void
> spapr_machine_2_12_class_options(MachineClass *mc)
> /* Defaults for the latest behaviour inherited from the base class */
> }
>
> -DEFINE_SPAPR_MACHINE(2_12, "2.12", true);
> +DEFINE_SPAPR_MACHINE(2_12, "2.12", false);
>
> /*
> * pseries-2.11
> @@ -3842,7 +3842,7 @@ static void
> spapr_machine_2_11_class_options(MachineClass *mc)
> SET_MACHINE_COMPAT(mc, SPAPR_COMPAT_2_11);
> }
>
> -DEFINE_SPAPR_MACHINE(2_11, "2.11", false);
> +DEFINE_SPAPR_MACHINE(2_11, "2.11", true);
>
> /*
> * pseries-2.10
> diff --git a/hw/ppc/spapr_caps.c b/hw/ppc/spapr_caps.c
> index 7b229517be38..82043e60e78b 100644
> --- a/hw/ppc/spapr_caps.c
> +++ b/hw/ppc/spapr_caps.c
> @@ -285,6 +285,11 @@ static sPAPRCapabilities
> default_caps_with_cpu(sPAPRMachineState *spapr,
>
> caps = smc->default_caps;
>
> + /* HACK for 2.11.2: fix make check */
> + if (tcg_enabled()) {
> + caps.caps[SPAPR_CAP_HTM] = SPAPR_CAP_OFF;
> + }
> +
> if (!ppc_check_compat(cpu, CPU_POWERPC_LOGICAL_2_07,
> 0, spapr->max_compat_pvr)) {
> caps.caps[SPAPR_CAP_HTM] = SPAPR_CAP_OFF;
>
