On 8/31/21 4:03 PM, David Hildenbrand wrote:
On 03.08.21 10:26, Pierre Morel wrote:
...snip...
@@ -819,6 +820,23 @@ int kvm_vm_ioctl_enable_cap(struct kvm *kvm,
struct kvm_enable_cap *cap)
icpt_operexc_on_all_vcpus(kvm);
r = 0;
break;
+ case KVM_CAP_S390_CPU_TOPOLOGY:
+ mutex_lock(&kvm->lock);
+ if (kvm->created_vcpus) {
+ r = -EBUSY;
+ } else {
+ set_kvm_facility(kvm->arch.model.fac_mask, 11);
+ set_kvm_facility(kvm->arch.model.fac_list, 11);
+ r = 0;
+ }
+ mutex_unlock(&kvm->lock);
+ VM_EVENT(kvm, 3, "ENABLE: CPU TOPOLOGY %s",
+ r ? "(not available)" : "(success)");
+ break;
+
+ r = -EINVAL;
+ break;
+
default:
r = -EINVAL;
break;
This above enables the facility 11.
...snip...
@@ -3198,6 +3239,11 @@ static int kvm_s390_vcpu_setup(struct kvm_vcpu
*vcpu)
vcpu->arch.sie_block->ecb |= ECB_HOSTPROTINT;
if (test_kvm_facility(vcpu->kvm, 9))
vcpu->arch.sie_block->ecb |= ECB_SRSI;
+
+ /* PTF needs both host and guest facilities to enable
interpretation */
+ if (test_kvm_facility(vcpu->kvm, 11) && test_facility(11))
+ vcpu->arch.sie_block->ecb |= ECB_PTF;
Again, doesn't test_kvm_facility(vcpu->kvm, 11) imply that we have host
support by checking fac_mask?
--
Pierre Morel
IBM Lab Boeblingen
