Re: [PATCH 04/12] KVM: s390: implement GISA IPM related primitives

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

 



On 18.01.2018 15:29, Michael Mueller wrote:
> 
> 
> On 17.01.18 15:35, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>> On 16.01.2018 21:02, Christian Borntraeger wrote:
>>> From: Michael Mueller <mimu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>>
>>> The patch implements routines to access the GISA to test and modify
>>> its Interruption Pending Mask (IPM) from the host side.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Michael Mueller <mimu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>> Reviewed-by: Pierre Morel <pmorel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>> Reviewed-by: Halil Pasic <pasic@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>> Reviewed-by: Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>> Signed-off-by: Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>> ---
>>>   arch/s390/kvm/interrupt.c | 23 +++++++++++++++++++++++
>>>   arch/s390/kvm/kvm-s390.h  |  4 ++++
>>>   2 files changed, 27 insertions(+)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/arch/s390/kvm/interrupt.c b/arch/s390/kvm/interrupt.c
>>> index b94173560dcf..dfdecff302d2 100644
>>> --- a/arch/s390/kvm/interrupt.c
>>> +++ b/arch/s390/kvm/interrupt.c
>>> @@ -2682,3 +2682,26 @@ int kvm_s390_get_irq_state(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, __u8 __user *buf, int len)
>>>   
>>>   	return n;
>>>   }
>>> +
>>> +#define IPM_BIT_OFFSET (offsetof(struct kvm_s390_gisa, ipm) * 8)
>>
>> 8 -> BITS_PER_BYTE, but ...
>>
>> Am I wrong or can we only modify the 8 ipm bits this way? But we
>> want/have to do it in an atomic fashion?
>>
>> Using an unsigned long seems wrong, because we "rewrite" more than we
>> should. Esp. everything beyond ipm. oi / ni and friends are not
>> available on older machines.
>>
>> What about something as simple as the following
>>
>>
>> +void kvm_s390_gisa_set_ipm_gisc(struct kvm_s390_gisa *gisa, u8 gisc)
>> +{
>> +       u8 value = (0x80 >> gisc);
>> +
>> +       __sync_fetch_and_or(&gisa->ipm, value);
>> +}
>> +
>>
> 
> Nobody is using this compiler build-in in the kernel and a quick compile 
> shows that it produces an ORK and CS instead of a LAOG beside a lot of 
> supporting instructions. Unfortunately it's not saving what you promise 
> ... ;) Will not change.
> 

Using unsigned long * bitmap operations to modify an u8 type atomically
just seems very very wrong.


-- 

Thanks,

David / dhildenb
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-s390" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html



[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[Index of Archives]     [Kernel Development]     [Kernel Newbies]     [IDE]     [Security]     [Git]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite Info]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Linux ATA RAID]     [Samba]     [Linux Media]     [Device Mapper]

  Powered by Linux