The architecture specific loaders are now called with a list of all
elements of a given type (rather than a single element at a time). This
avoids the need to reallocate the arrays in CPU maps for each element.
Signed-off-by: Jiri Denemark <jdenemar@redhat.com>
There's no reason for keeping the models in a linked list. Especially
when we know upfront the total number of models we are loading.
As a nice side effect, this fixes ppc64GetModels to always return a
NULL-terminated list of models.
Signed-off-by: Jiri Denemark <jdenemar@redhat.com>
There's no reason for keeping the vendors in a linked list. Especially
when we know upfront the total number of models we are loading.
Signed-off-by: Jiri Denemark <jdenemar@redhat.com>
There's no reason for keeping the features in a linked list. Especially
when we know upfront the total number of features we are loading.
Signed-off-by: Jiri Denemark <jdenemar@redhat.com>
There's no reason for keeping the vendors in a linked list. Especially
when we know upfront the total number of models we are loading.
Signed-off-by: Jiri Denemark <jdenemar@redhat.com>
There's no reason for keeping the models in a linked list. Especially
when we know upfront the total number of models we are loading.
As a nice side effect, this fixes x86GetModels to always return a
NULL-terminated list of models.
Signed-off-by: Jiri Denemark <jdenemar@redhat.com>
When searching for the best CPU model for CPUID data we can easily
ignore models with non-matching vendor before spending time on CPUID
data to virCPUDef conversion.
Signed-off-by: Jiri Denemark <jdenemar@redhat.com>
Splitting the comparison into a separate function makes the code cleaner
and easier to update in the future.
Signed-off-by: Jiri Denemark <jdenemar@redhat.com>
Usage of this keyword in front of function declaration that is exported via a
header file is unnecessary, since internally, this has been the default for most
compilers for quite some time.
Signed-off-by: Erik Skultety <eskultet@redhat.com>
Commit 7068b56c introduced several hyperv features. Not all hyperv
features are supported by old enough kernels and we shouldn't allow to
start a guest if kernel doesn't support any of the hyperv feature.
There is one exception, for backward compatibility we cannot error out
if one of the RELAXED, VAPIC or SPINLOCKS isn't supported, for the same
reason we ignore invtsc, to not break restoring saved domains with older
libvirt.
Signed-off-by: Pavel Hrdina <phrdina@redhat.com>
While the check is appropriate for eg. the x86 and generic drivers,
there are some valid ppc64 guest configurations where the CPU
model is supposed to be NULL.
Moving this check from the generic code to the drivers makes it
possible to accomodate both use cases.
Resolves: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1251927
Not all combinations of host CPU models and compatibility modes
are valid, so we need to make sure we don't try to do something
that QEMU will reject.
Moreover, we need to apply a different logic to guests using
host-model and host-passthrough modes when testing them for host
compatibility.
Resolves: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1251927
If a guest CPU is defined using
<cpu mode='host-model'/>
the <model> sub-element will contain the compatibility mode to use.
That means we can't just copy the host CPU model on cpuUpdate(),
otherwise we'll overwrite that information and migration of such
guests will fail.
Resolves: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1251927
Unlike what happens on x86, on ppc64 you can't mix and match CPU
features to obtain the guest CPU you want regardless of the host
CPU, so the concept of model fallback doesn't apply.
Make sure CPU definitions emitted by the driver, eg. as output of
the cpuBaseline() and cpuUpdate() calls, reflect this fact.
All previously recognized CPU models (POWER7_v2.1, POWER7_v2.3,
POWER7+_v2.1 and POWER8_v1.0) are internally converted to the
corrisponding generation name so that existing guests don't stop
working.
Use multiple PVRs per CPU model to reduce the number of models we
need to keep track of.
Remove specific CPU models (eg. POWER7+_v2.1): the corresponding
generic CPU model (eg. POWER7) should be used instead to ensure
the guest can be booted on any compatible host.
Get rid of all the entries that did not match any of the CPU
models supported by QEMU, like power8 and power8e.
Resolves: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1250977
This will allow us to perform PVR matching more broadly, eg. consider
both POWER8 and POWER8E CPUs to be the same even though they have
different PVR values.
This ensures comparison of two CPU definitions will be consistent
regardless of the fact that it is performed using cpuCompare() or
cpuGuestData(). The x86 driver uses the same exact code.
Limitations of the POWER architecture mean that you can't run
eg. a POWER7 guest on a POWER8 host when using KVM. This applies
to all guests, not just those using VIR_CPU_MATCH_STRICT in the
CPU definition; in fact, exact and strict CPU matching are
basically the same on ppc64.
This means, of course, that hosts using different CPUs have to be
considered incompatible as well.
Change ppc64Compute(), called by cpuGuestData(), to reflect this
fact and update test cases accordingly.
Resolves: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1250977
ppc64Compute(), called by cpuNodeData(), is used not only to retrieve
the driver-specific data associated to a guest CPU definition, but
also to check whether said guest CPU is compatible with the host CPU.
If the user is not interested in the CPU data, it's perfectly fine
to pass a NULL pointer instead of a return location, and the
compatibility data returned should not be affected by this. One of
the checks, specifically the one on CPU model name, was however
only performed if the return location was non-NULL.
Use briefer checks, eg. (!model) instead of (model == NULL), and
avoid initializing to NULL a pointer that would be assigned in
the first line of the function anyway.
Also remove a pointless NULL assignment.
No functional changes.
Use the ppc64Driver prefix for all functions that are used to
fill in the cpuDriverPPC64 structure, ie. those that are going
to be called by the generic CPU code.
This makes it clear which functions are exported and which are
implementation details; it also gets rid of the ambiguity that
affected the ppc64DataFree() function which, despite what the
name suggested, was not related to ppc64DataCopy() and could
not be used to release the memory allocated for a
virCPUppc64Data* instance.
No functional changes.
Only the symbols exported by the driver have been updated;
the driver implementation itself still uses the old names
internally.
No functional changes.
The driver only supports VIR_ARCH_PPC64 and VIR_ARCH_PPC64LE.
Just shuffling files around and updating the build system
accordingly. No functional changes.
Inheritance among CPU model is cool but it makes reviewing CPU model
definitions and comparing them to CPU models from QEMU rather hard and
unpleasant. Let's define all CPU models from scratch.
Signed-off-by: Jiri Denemark <jdenemar@redhat.com>
Inheritance among CPU model is cool but it makes reviewing CPU model
definitions and comparing them to CPU models from QEMU rather hard and
unpleasant. Let's define all CPU models from scratch.
Signed-off-by: Jiri Denemark <jdenemar@redhat.com>
Inheritance among CPU model is cool but it makes reviewing CPU model
definitions and comparing them to CPU models from QEMU rather hard and
unpleasant. Let's define all CPU models from scratch.
Signed-off-by: Jiri Denemark <jdenemar@redhat.com>
Inheritance among CPU model is cool but it makes reviewing CPU model
definitions and comparing them to CPU models from QEMU rather hard and
unpleasant. Let's define all CPU models from scratch.
Signed-off-by: Jiri Denemark <jdenemar@redhat.com>
Inheritance among CPU model is cool but it makes reviewing CPU model
definitions and comparing them to CPU models from QEMU rather hard and
unpleasant. Let's define all CPU models from scratch.
Signed-off-by: Jiri Denemark <jdenemar@redhat.com>
Inheritance among CPU model is cool but it makes reviewing CPU model
definitions and comparing them to CPU models from QEMU rather hard and
unpleasant. Let's define all CPU models from scratch.
Signed-off-by: Jiri Denemark <jdenemar@redhat.com>
Inheritance among CPU model is cool but it makes reviewing CPU model
definitions and comparing them to CPU models from QEMU rather hard and
unpleasant. Let's define all CPU models from scratch.
Signed-off-by: Jiri Denemark <jdenemar@redhat.com>
Inheritance among CPU model is cool but it makes reviewing CPU model
definitions and comparing them to CPU models from QEMU rather hard and
unpleasant. Let's define all CPU models from scratch.
Signed-off-by: Jiri Denemark <jdenemar@redhat.com>
Inheritance among CPU model is cool but it makes reviewing CPU model
definitions and comparing them to CPU models from QEMU rather hard and
unpleasant. Let's define all CPU models from scratch.
Signed-off-by: Jiri Denemark <jdenemar@redhat.com>
Inheritance among CPU model is cool but it makes reviewing CPU model
definitions and comparing them to CPU models from QEMU rather hard and
unpleasant. Let's define all CPU models from scratch.
Signed-off-by: Jiri Denemark <jdenemar@redhat.com>
Inheritance among CPU model is cool but it makes reviewing CPU model
definitions and comparing them to CPU models from QEMU rather hard and
unpleasant. Let's define all CPU models from scratch.
Signed-off-by: Jiri Denemark <jdenemar@redhat.com>
Inheritance among CPU model is cool but it makes reviewing CPU model
definitions and comparing them to CPU models from QEMU rather hard and
unpleasant. Let's define all CPU models from scratch.
Signed-off-by: Jiri Denemark <jdenemar@redhat.com>
Inheritance among CPU model is cool but it makes reviewing CPU model
definitions and comparing them to CPU models from QEMU rather hard and
unpleasant. Let's define all CPU models from scratch.
Signed-off-by: Jiri Denemark <jdenemar@redhat.com>
Inheritance among CPU model is cool but it makes reviewing CPU model
definitions and comparing them to CPU models from QEMU rather hard and
unpleasant. Let's define all CPU models from scratch.
Signed-off-by: Jiri Denemark <jdenemar@redhat.com>
Inheritance among CPU model is cool but it makes reviewing CPU model
definitions and comparing them to CPU models from QEMU rather hard and
unpleasant. Let's define all CPU models from scratch.
Signed-off-by: Jiri Denemark <jdenemar@redhat.com>
Inheritance among CPU model is cool but it makes reviewing CPU model
definitions and comparing them to CPU models from QEMU rather hard and
unpleasant. Let's define all CPU models from scratch.
Signed-off-by: Jiri Denemark <jdenemar@redhat.com>
Inheritance among CPU model is cool but it makes reviewing CPU model
definitions and comparing them to CPU models from QEMU rather hard and
unpleasant. Let's define all CPU models from scratch.
Signed-off-by: Jiri Denemark <jdenemar@redhat.com>
Inheritance among CPU model is cool but it makes reviewing CPU model
definitions and comparing them to CPU models from QEMU rather hard and
unpleasant. Let's define all CPU models from scratch.
Signed-off-by: Jiri Denemark <jdenemar@redhat.com>
Inheritance among CPU model is cool but it makes reviewing CPU model
definitions and comparing them to CPU models from QEMU rather hard and
unpleasant. Let's define all CPU models from scratch.
Signed-off-by: Jiri Denemark <jdenemar@redhat.com>
Inheritance among CPU model is cool but it makes reviewing CPU model
definitions and comparing them to CPU models from QEMU rather hard and
unpleasant. Let's define all CPU models from scratch.
Signed-off-by: Jiri Denemark <jdenemar@redhat.com>
QEMU 2.3 adds these new models to cover Haswell and Broadwell CPUs with
updated microcode. Luckily, they also reverted former the machine type
specific changes to existing models. And since these changes were never
released, we don't need to hack around them in libvirt.
Signed-off-by: Jiri Denemark <jdenemar@redhat.com>
Wikipedia's list of common misspellings [1] has a machine-readable
version. This patch fixes those misspellings mentioned in the list
which don't have multiple right variants (as e.g. "accension", which can
be both "accession" and "ascension"), such misspellings are left
untouched. The list of changes was manually re-checked for false
positives.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Lists_of_common_misspellings/For_machines
Signed-off-by: Martin Kletzander <mkletzan@redhat.com>
For historical reasons data regarding NUMA configuration were split
between the CPU definition and numatune. We cannot do anything about the
XML still being split, but we certainly can at least store the relevant
data in one place.
This patch moves the NUMA stuff to the right place.
Not all files we want to find using virFileFindResource{,Full} are
generated when libvirt is built, some of them (such as RNG schemas) are
distributed with sources. The current API was not able to find source
files if libvirt was built in VPATH.
Both RNG schemas and cpu_map.xml are distributed in source tarball.
Signed-off-by: Jiri Denemark <jdenemar@redhat.com>
The virCPUDefFormat* methods were relying on the VIR_DOMAIN_XML_*
flag definitions. It is not desirable for low level internal
functions to be coupled to flags for the public API, since they
may need to be called from several different contexts where the
flags would not be appropriate.
The curent libvirt CPU driver for s390 does not return a host CPU model.
This patch returns 'host' according to the other platforms that would
not decode any CPU model.
This is an intermediate bugfix due to a discussion on OpenStack mailing
list. The final patch introducing the CPU model support for s390x will
exchange the hard-coded decode method.
Signed-off-by: Daniel Hansel <daniel.hansel@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Commit 86a15a25 introduced a new cpu driver API 'getModels'. Public API
allow you to pass NULL for models to get only number of existing models.
However the new code will crash with segfault so we have to count with
the possibility that the user wants only the number.
There is also difference in order of the models gathered by this new API
as the old approach was inserting the elements to the end of the array
so we should use 'VIR_APPEND_ELEMENT'.
Signed-off-by: Pavel Hrdina <phrdina@redhat.com>
For Intel and PowerPC the implementation is calling a cpu driver
function across driver layers (i.e. from qemu driver directly to cpu
driver).
The correct behavior is to use libvirt API functionality to perform such
a inter-driver call.
This patch introduces a new cpu driver API function getModels() to
retrieve the cpu models. The currect implementation to process the
cpu_map XML content is transferred to the INTEL and PowerPC cpu driver
specific API functions.
Additionally processing the cpu_map XML file is not safe due to the fact
that the cpu map does not exist for all architectures. Therefore it is
better to encapsulate the processing in the architecture specific cpu
drivers.
Signed-off-by: Daniel Hansel <daniel.hansel@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Reviewed-by: Boris Fiuczynski <fiuczy@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Reviewed-by: Viktor Mihajlovski <mihajlov@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
IBM Power processors differ uniquely across generations (such as power6,
power7, power8). Each generation signifies a new PowerISA version
that exhibits features unique to that generation.
The higher 16 bits of PVR for IBM Power processors encode the CPU
generation, while the CPU chip (sub)version is encoded in lower 16 bits.
For all practical purposes of launching a VM, we care about the
generation which the vCPU will belong to, and not specifically the chip
version. This patch updates the libvirt PVR check to reflect this
relationship. It allows libvirt to select the right CPU generation
in case the exact match for a a specific CPU is not found.
Hence, there will no longer be a need to add each PowerPC CPU model to
cpu_map.xml; just adding entry for the matching ISA generation will
suffice.
It also contains changes to cpu_map.xml since processor generations
as understood by QEMU compat mode go as "power6", "power7" or "power8"
[Reference : QEMU commit 8dfa3a5e85 ]
Signed-off-by: Prerna Saxena <prerna@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Signed-off-by: Pradipta Kr. Banerjee <bpradip@in.ibm.com>
Signed-off-by: Anton Blanchard <anton@samba.org>
Reviewed-by: Michal Privoznik <mprivozn@redhat.com>
PowerISA allows processors to run VMs in binary compatibility ("compat")
mode supporting an older version of ISA. QEMU has recently added support to
explicitly denote a VM running in compatibility mode through commit 6d9412ea
& 8dfa3a5e85. Now, a "compat" mode VM can be run by invoking this qemu
commandline on a POWER8 host: -cpu host,compat=power7.
This patch allows libvirt to exploit cpu mode 'host-model' to describe this
new mode for PowerKVM guests. For example, when a user wants to request a
power7 vm to run in compatibility mode on a Power8 host, this can be
described in XML as follows :
<cpu mode='host-model'>
<model>power7</model>
</cpu>
Signed-off-by: Prerna Saxena <prerna@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Signed-off-by: Li Zhang <zhlcindy@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Signed-off-by: Pradipta Kr. Banerjee <bpradip@in.ibm.com>
Acked-by: Michal Privoznik <mprivozn@redhat.com>
This adds support for PowerPC Little Endian architecture.,
and allows libvirt to spawn VMs based on 'ppc64le' architecture.
Signed-off-by: Pradipta Kr. Banerjee <bpradip@in.ibm.com>
Signed-off-by: Prerna Saxena <prerna@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Reviewed-by: Michal Privoznik <mprivozn@redhat.com>
Commit de0aeaf filtered them out from the host-model features,
to allow host-model to be migratable by default.
Even though they are not passed to QEMU for host-passthrough,
(and not enabled by default) filter them out too
so the user does not think the domain has them.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1147584
Commit fba6bc4 introduced support for the 'invtsc' feature,
which blocks migration. We should not include it in the
host-model CPU by default, because it's intended to be used
with migration.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1138221
Replace:
if (virBufferError(&buf)) {
virBufferFreeAndReset(&buf);
virReportOOMError();
...
}
with:
if (virBufferCheckError(&buf) < 0)
...
This should not be a functional change (unless some callers
misused the virBuffer APIs - a different error would be reported
then)
When CPU comparison APIs return VIR_CPU_COMPARE_INCOMPATIBLE, the caller
has no clue why the CPU is considered incompatible with host CPU. And in
some cases, it would be nice to be able to get such info in a client
rather than having to look in logs.
To achieve this, the APIs can be told to return VIR_ERR_CPU_INCOMPATIBLE
error for incompatible CPUs and the reason will be described in the
associated error message.
Signed-off-by: Jiri Denemark <jdenemar@redhat.com>
