On 12/11/19 1:54 PM, David Hildenbrand wrote: > On 11.12.19 13:37, Janosch Frank wrote: >> On 12/11/19 1:32 PM, David Hildenbrand wrote: >>> On 11.12.19 12:59, Janosch Frank wrote: >>>> Grab the CRs (currently only 0, 1, 7, 13) from cpu 0, so we can >>>> bringup the new cpu in DAT mode or set other control options. >>>> >>>> Signed-off-by: Janosch Frank <frankja@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> >>>> --- >>>> lib/s390x/smp.c | 5 ++++- >>>> s390x/cstart64.S | 2 +- >>>> 2 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) >>>> >>>> diff --git a/lib/s390x/smp.c b/lib/s390x/smp.c >>>> index e17751a..4dfe7c6 100644 >>>> --- a/lib/s390x/smp.c >>>> +++ b/lib/s390x/smp.c >>>> @@ -191,7 +191,10 @@ int smp_cpu_setup(uint16_t addr, struct psw psw) >>>> cpu->lowcore->sw_int_grs[15] = (uint64_t)cpu->stack + (PAGE_SIZE * 4); >>>> lc->restart_new_psw.mask = 0x0000000180000000UL; >>>> lc->restart_new_psw.addr = (uint64_t)smp_cpu_setup_state; >>>> - lc->sw_int_crs[0] = 0x0000000000040000UL; >>>> + lc->sw_int_crs[0] = stctg(0); >>>> + lc->sw_int_crs[1] = stctg(1); >>>> + lc->sw_int_crs[7] = stctg(7); >>>> + lc->sw_int_crs[13] = stctg(13); >>> >>> Wouldn't it be better to also be able to specify the CRs explicitly here? >>> >> >> Yes, but currently there are no users for something like that and it >> would mean that we might need to add more code to support it. >> >> As I said in the cover letter, this is a good first step to allow DAT on >> additional cpus without any real setup needed in a test. Later we could >> add a function to specify the CRs explicitly. >> > > Can you clarify why we need this patch now (e.g., DAT)? This patch > sounds like it would make sense in the future only (it is easier to > review with future changes IMHO). > Some G1 UV calls need the home space and therefore I added this patch to my concurrency tests which are still in my queue. I thought these fixes might make sense anyway and could be flushed from my queue before the UV patches are ready.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
