Re: [PATCH v10 2/3] KVM: s390: guest support for topology function

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 





On 6/24/22 17:09, Janis Schoetterl-Glausch wrote:
On 6/20/22 14:54, Pierre Morel wrote:
We report a topology change to the guest for any CPU hotplug.

The reporting to the guest is done using the Multiprocessor
Topology-Change-Report (MTCR) bit of the utility entry in the guest's
SCA which will be cleared during the interpretation of PTF.

On every vCPU creation we set the MCTR bit to let the guest know the
next time he uses the PTF with command 2 instruction that the
topology changed and that he should use the STSI(15.1.x) instruction
to get the topology details.

STSI(15.1.x) gives information on the CPU configuration topology.
Let's accept the interception of STSI with the function code 15 and
let the userland part of the hypervisor handle it when userland
support the CPU Topology facility.

Signed-off-by: Pierre Morel <pmorel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
---
  arch/s390/include/asm/kvm_host.h | 11 ++++++++---
  arch/s390/kvm/kvm-s390.c         | 27 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
  arch/s390/kvm/priv.c             | 15 +++++++++++----
  arch/s390/kvm/vsie.c             |  3 +++
  4 files changed, 48 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)

[...]

diff --git a/arch/s390/kvm/kvm-s390.c b/arch/s390/kvm/kvm-s390.c
index 8fcb56141689..95b96019ca8e 100644
--- a/arch/s390/kvm/kvm-s390.c
+++ b/arch/s390/kvm/kvm-s390.c
@@ -1691,6 +1691,25 @@ static int kvm_s390_get_cpu_model(struct kvm *kvm, struct kvm_device_attr *attr)
  	return ret;
  }

+/**
+ * kvm_s390_sca_set_mtcr
+ * @kvm: guest KVM description
+ *
+ * Is only relevant if the topology facility is present,
+ * the caller should check KVM facility 11
+ *
+ * Updates the Multiprocessor Topology-Change-Report to signal
+ * the guest with a topology change.
+ */
+static void kvm_s390_sca_set_mtcr(struct kvm *kvm)
+{
+	struct bsca_block *sca = kvm->arch.sca; /* SCA version doesn't matter */
+
+	ipte_lock(kvm);

Why do we need to take the ipte lock here and in patch 3?

That is a good question.
I fear I was tired as I understood that from the documentation, after re-reading, we need an interlocked-update not an ipte lock update.
... I have to change that



+	sca->utility |= SCA_UTILITY_MTCR;
+	ipte_unlock(kvm);
+}

[...]


--
Pierre Morel
IBM Lab Boeblingen



[Index of Archives]     [KVM ARM]     [KVM ia64]     [KVM ppc]     [Virtualization Tools]     [Spice Development]     [Libvirt]     [Libvirt Users]     [Linux USB Devel]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Yosemite Questions]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]     [XFree86]

  Powered by Linux