Re: [PATCH v9 05/10] s390x/cpu: reporting drawers and books topology to the guest

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

 





On 9/7/22 12:36, Janis Schoetterl-Glausch wrote:
On Fri, 2022-09-02 at 09:55 +0200, Pierre Morel wrote:
The guest can ask for a topology report on drawer's or book's
level.
Let's implement the STSI instruction's handling for the corresponding
selector values.

Signed-off-by: Pierre Morel <pmorel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
---
  hw/s390x/cpu-topology.c         | 19 +++++++---
  hw/s390x/s390-virtio-ccw.c      |  2 ++
  include/hw/s390x/cpu-topology.h |  7 +++-
  target/s390x/cpu_topology.c     | 64 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++------
  4 files changed, 76 insertions(+), 16 deletions(-)

diff --git a/hw/s390x/cpu-topology.c b/hw/s390x/cpu-topology.c
index e2fd5c7e44..bb9ae63483 100644
--- a/hw/s390x/cpu-topology.c
+++ b/hw/s390x/cpu-topology.c

[...]

@@ -99,13 +103,20 @@ static void s390_topology_realize(DeviceState *dev, Error **errp)
      S390Topology *topo = S390_CPU_TOPOLOGY(dev);
      int n;
+ topo->drawers = ms->smp.drawers;
+    topo->books = ms->smp.books;
+    topo->total_books = topo->books * topo->drawers;
      topo->sockets = ms->smp.sockets;
+    topo->total_sockets = topo->sockets * topo->books * topo->drawers;
      topo->cores = ms->smp.cores;
-    topo->tles = ms->smp.max_cpus;
- n = topo->sockets;
+    n = topo->drawers;
+    topo->drawer = g_malloc0(n * sizeof(S390TopoContainer));
+    n *= topo->books;
+    topo->book = g_malloc0(n * sizeof(S390TopoContainer));
+    n *= topo->sockets;
      topo->socket = g_malloc0(n * sizeof(S390TopoContainer));
-    topo->tle = g_malloc0(topo->tles * sizeof(S390TopoTLE));
+    topo->tle = g_malloc0(n * sizeof(S390TopoTLE));

Same question here about using g_new0.

yes, g_new0 is better here

qemu_mutex_init(&topo->topo_mutex);
  }
diff --git a/hw/s390x/s390-virtio-ccw.c b/hw/s390x/s390-virtio-ccw.c
index 15cefd104b..3f28e28d47 100644
--- a/hw/s390x/s390-virtio-ccw.c
+++ b/hw/s390x/s390-virtio-ccw.c
@@ -626,6 +626,8 @@ static void ccw_machine_class_init(ObjectClass *oc, void *data)
      hc->unplug_request = s390_machine_device_unplug_request;
      nc->nmi_monitor_handler = s390_nmi;
      mc->default_ram_id = "s390.ram";
+    mc->smp_props.books_supported = true;
+    mc->smp_props.drawers_supported = true;
  }
static inline bool machine_get_aes_key_wrap(Object *obj, Error **errp)
diff --git a/include/hw/s390x/cpu-topology.h b/include/hw/s390x/cpu-topology.h
index 0b7f3d10b2..4f8ac39ca0 100644
--- a/include/hw/s390x/cpu-topology.h
+++ b/include/hw/s390x/cpu-topology.h
@@ -29,9 +29,14 @@ typedef struct S390TopoTLE {
struct S390Topology {
      SysBusDevice parent_obj;
+    int total_books;
+    int total_sockets;

What are these used for? I'm not seeing anything.

+    int drawers;
+    int books;
      int sockets;
      int cores;
-    int tles;

You remove this in this patch and you didn't really need it before.
As far as I can tell it was just used for calculating the number of
tles to allocate and you could use a local variable instead.
So I would get rid of it in the patch that introduced it.

yes



+    S390TopoContainer *drawer;
+    S390TopoContainer *book;
      S390TopoContainer *socket;
      S390TopoTLE *tle;
      QemuMutex topo_mutex;
diff --git a/target/s390x/cpu_topology.c b/target/s390x/cpu_topology.c
index 56865dafc6..305fbb9734 100644
--- a/target/s390x/cpu_topology.c
+++ b/target/s390x/cpu_topology.c
@@ -37,19 +37,18 @@ static char *fill_tle_cpu(char *p, uint64_t mask, int origin)
      return p + sizeof(*tle);
  }
-static char *s390_top_set_level2(S390Topology *topo, char *p)
+static char *s390_top_set_level2(S390Topology *topo, char *p, int fs, int ns)
  {

I wouldn't hate more verbose names for fs and ns. start_socket,
num_socket maybe? Same for fb, nb, but it is your call, it's not really
hard to understand the code.

I prefer to keep the names short but I will have a second thought.


-    int i, origin;
+    int socket, origin;
+    uint64_t mask;
- for (i = 0; i < topo->sockets; i++) {
-        if (!topo->socket[i].active_count) {
+    for (socket = fs; socket < fs + ns; socket++) {
+        if (!topo->socket[socket].active_count) {
              continue;
          }
-        p = fill_container(p, 1, i);
+        p = fill_container(p, 1, socket);

Have you considered using an enum for the level constants?

did not but yes it would be better.


          for (origin = 0; origin < S390_TOPOLOGY_MAX_ORIGIN; origin++) {
-            uint64_t mask = 0L;
-
-            mask = be64_to_cpu(topo->tle[i].mask[origin]);
+            mask = be64_to_cpu(topo->tle[socket].mask[origin]);
              if (mask) {
                  p = fill_tle_cpu(p, mask, origin);
              }
@@ -58,19 +57,63 @@ static char *s390_top_set_level2(S390Topology *topo, char *p)
      return p;
  }
+static char *s390_top_set_level3(S390Topology *topo, char *p, int fb, int nb)
+{
+    int book, fs = 0;
+
+    for (book = fb; book < fb + nb; book++, fs += topo->sockets) {
+        if (!topo->book[book].active_count) {
+            continue;
+        }
+        p = fill_container(p, 2, book);
+    p = s390_top_set_level2(topo, p, fs, topo->sockets);

Indent is off.

thx


+    }
+    return p;
+}
+
+static char *s390_top_set_level4(S390Topology *topo, char *p)
+{
+    int drawer, fb = 0;
+
+    for (drawer = 0; drawer < topo->drawers; drawer++, fb += topo->books) {
+        if (!topo->drawer[drawer].active_count) {
+            continue;
+        }
+        p = fill_container(p, 3, drawer);
+        p = s390_top_set_level3(topo, p, fb, topo->books);
+    }
+    return p;
+}
+
  static int setup_stsi(SysIB_151x *sysib, int level)
  {
      S390Topology *topo = s390_get_topology();
      char *p = (char *)sysib->tle;
+    int max_containers;
qemu_mutex_lock(&topo->topo_mutex); sysib->mnest = level;
      switch (level) {
      case 2:
+        max_containers = topo->sockets * topo->books * topo->drawers;
+        sysib->mag[TOPOLOGY_NR_MAG2] = max_containers;
+        sysib->mag[TOPOLOGY_NR_MAG1] = topo->cores;
+        p = s390_top_set_level2(topo, p, 0, max_containers);

Isn't this logic change already required for the patch that introduced
stsi 15.1.2 handling?

yes, thx


+        break;
+    case 3:
+        max_containers = topo->books * topo->drawers;
+        sysib->mag[TOPOLOGY_NR_MAG3] = max_containers;
          sysib->mag[TOPOLOGY_NR_MAG2] = topo->sockets;
          sysib->mag[TOPOLOGY_NR_MAG1] = topo->cores;
-        p = s390_top_set_level2(topo, p);
+        p = s390_top_set_level3(topo, p, 0, max_containers);
+        break;
+    case 4:
+        sysib->mag[TOPOLOGY_NR_MAG4] = topo->drawers;
+        sysib->mag[TOPOLOGY_NR_MAG3] = topo->books;
+        sysib->mag[TOPOLOGY_NR_MAG2] = topo->sockets;
+        sysib->mag[TOPOLOGY_NR_MAG1] = topo->cores;
+        p = s390_top_set_level4(topo, p);
          break;
      }
@@ -79,7 +122,7 @@ static int setup_stsi(SysIB_151x *sysib, int level)
      return p - (char *)sysib->tle;
  }
-#define S390_TOPOLOGY_MAX_MNEST 2
+#define S390_TOPOLOGY_MAX_MNEST 4

AFAIK you're only allowed to increase this if the maximum mnest
facility is installed. If it isn't, only level 2 is supported.
Which would mean that this patch doesn't do anything.

AFAIU this is model dependant but I have to rework the MNEST entry of the SYSIB anyway.


  void insert_stsi_15_1_x(S390CPU *cpu, int sel2, __u64 addr, uint8_t ar)
  {
      SysIB_151x *sysib;
@@ -105,4 +148,3 @@ void insert_stsi_15_1_x(S390CPU *cpu, int sel2, __u64 addr, uint8_t ar)
  out_free:
      g_free(sysib);
  }
-


Thanks for the comments

Regards,
Pierre

--
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