On 12/11/19 1:31 PM, David Hildenbrand wrote: > On 11.12.19 12:59, Janosch Frank wrote: >> Up to now we ignored the psw mask and only used the psw address when >> bringing up a new cpu. For DAT we need to also load the mask, so let's >> do that. >> >> Signed-off-by: Janosch Frank <frankja@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> >> --- >> lib/s390x/smp.c | 2 ++ >> s390x/cstart64.S | 2 +- >> 2 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) >> >> diff --git a/lib/s390x/smp.c b/lib/s390x/smp.c >> index f57f420..e17751a 100644 >> --- a/lib/s390x/smp.c >> +++ b/lib/s390x/smp.c >> @@ -185,6 +185,8 @@ int smp_cpu_setup(uint16_t addr, struct psw psw) >> cpu->stack = (uint64_t *)alloc_pages(2); >> >> /* Start without DAT and any other mask bits. */ >> + cpu->lowcore->sw_int_psw.mask = psw.mask; >> + cpu->lowcore->sw_int_psw.addr = psw.addr; >> cpu->lowcore->sw_int_grs[14] = psw.addr; > > Not looking at the code (sorry :D ), do we still need this then? (you > drop the br bewlo) r14 is the return address, saving/initialising it doesn't sound like a bad idea to me. If we ever have stack traces, it might show up, or won't it? > >> cpu->lowcore->sw_int_grs[15] = (uint64_t)cpu->stack + (PAGE_SIZE * 4); >> lc->restart_new_psw.mask = 0x0000000180000000UL; >> diff --git a/s390x/cstart64.S b/s390x/cstart64.S >> index 86dd4c4..e6a6bdb 100644 >> --- a/s390x/cstart64.S >> +++ b/s390x/cstart64.S >> @@ -159,7 +159,7 @@ smp_cpu_setup_state: >> xgr %r1, %r1 >> lmg %r0, %r15, GEN_LC_SW_INT_GRS >> lctlg %c0, %c0, GEN_LC_SW_INT_CRS >> - br %r14 >> + lpswe GEN_LC_SW_INT_PSW >> >> pgm_int: >> SAVE_REGS >> > >
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
