On 6/24/22 08:56, Nico Boehr wrote:
Quoting Pierre Morel (2022-06-20 14:54:36)
[...]
diff --git a/arch/s390/include/asm/kvm_host.h b/arch/s390/include/asm/kvm_host.h
index 766028d54a3e..bb54196d4ed6 100644
--- a/arch/s390/include/asm/kvm_host.h
+++ b/arch/s390/include/asm/kvm_host.h
[...]
@@ -3403,6 +3426,8 @@ int kvm_arch_vcpu_create(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
rc = kvm_s390_vcpu_setup(vcpu);
if (rc)
goto out_ucontrol_uninit;
+
+ kvm_s390_sca_set_mtcr(vcpu->kvm);
We set the MTCR in the vcpu create. Does it also make sense to set it in kvm_arch_vcpu_destroy?
[...]
diff --git a/arch/s390/kvm/priv.c b/arch/s390/kvm/priv.c
index 12c464c7cddf..77a692238585 100644
--- a/arch/s390/kvm/priv.c
+++ b/arch/s390/kvm/priv.c
@@ -873,10 +873,13 @@ static int handle_stsi(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
[...]
+ case 15:
+ trace_kvm_s390_handle_stsi(vcpu, fc, sel1, sel2, operand2);
+ insert_stsi_usr_data(vcpu, operand2, ar, fc, sel1, sel2);
+ return -EREMOTE;
Maybe the API documentation should clearly note that once you turn on KVM_CAP_S390_CPU_TOPOLOGY, you will get exits to userspace for STSI 15.x.y, regardless of whether KVM_CAP_S390_USER_STSI is on or off.
Humm, right, I must change this, it is not right to have STSI(15) but
not STSI([123])
I will also have two other changes in this patch, the locking and add a
check for PV on STSI(15)
So I will respin in a short time.
Other than that, looks good, hence:
Reviewed-by: Nico Boehr <nrb@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
--
Pierre Morel
IBM Lab Boeblingen
