Re: [PATCH RFC 1/6] KVM: s390: take care of clock-comparator sign control

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

 




On 02/07/2018 02:58 PM, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> On 07.02.2018 14:47, Collin L. Walling wrote:
>> On 02/07/2018 06:46 AM, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>>> Missed when enabling the Multiple-epoch facility. If the facility is
>>> installed and the control is set, a sign based comaprison has to be
>>> performed.
>>>
>>> Right now we would inject wrong interrupts and ignore interrupt
>>> conditions. Also the sleep time is calculated in a wrong way.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: David Hildenbrand<david@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>> ---
>>>   arch/s390/kvm/interrupt.c | 25 +++++++++++++++++++------
>>>   1 file changed, 19 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/arch/s390/kvm/interrupt.c b/arch/s390/kvm/interrupt.c
>>> index 3ea9cfa31b16..a616e9b65f91 100644
>>> --- a/arch/s390/kvm/interrupt.c
>>> +++ b/arch/s390/kvm/interrupt.c
>>> @@ -169,8 +169,15 @@ static int ckc_interrupts_enabled(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
>>>
>>>   static int ckc_irq_pending(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
>>>   {
>>> -	if (vcpu->arch.sie_block->ckc >= kvm_s390_get_tod_clock_fast(vcpu->kvm))
>>> +	const u64 now = kvm_s390_get_tod_clock_fast(vcpu->kvm);
>>> +	const u64 ckc = vcpu->arch.sie_block->ckc;
>>> +
>>> +	if (vcpu->arch.sie_block->gcr[0] & 0x0020000000000000ul) {
>>> +		if ((s64)ckc >= (s64)now)
>>> +			return 0;
>>> +	} else if (ckc >= now) {
>>>   		return 0;
>>> +	}
>>>   	return ckc_interrupts_enabled(vcpu);
>>>   }
>>>
>>> @@ -1042,13 +1049,19 @@ int kvm_cpu_has_pending_timer(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
>>>
>>>   static u64 __calculate_sltime(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
>>>   {
>>> -	u64 now, cputm, sltime = 0;
>>> +	const u64 now = kvm_s390_get_tod_clock_fast(vcpu->kvm);
>>> +	const u64 ckc = vcpu->arch.sie_block->ckc;
>>> +	u64 cputm, sltime = 0;
>>>
>>>   	if (ckc_interrupts_enabled(vcpu)) {
>>> -		now = kvm_s390_get_tod_clock_fast(vcpu->kvm);
>>> -		sltime = tod_to_ns(vcpu->arch.sie_block->ckc - now);
>>> -		/* already expired or overflow? */
>>> -		if (!sltime || vcpu->arch.sie_block->ckc <= now)
>>> +		if (vcpu->arch.sie_block->gcr[0] & 0x0020000000000000ul) {
>>> +			if ((s64)now < (s64)ckc)
>>> +				sltime = tod_to_ns((s64)ckc - (s64)now);
>>> +		} else if (now < ckc) {
>>> +			sltime = tod_to_ns(ckc - now);
>>> +		}
>>> +		/* already expired */
>>> +		if (!sltime)
>>>   			return 0;
>>>   		if (cpu_timer_interrupts_enabled(vcpu)) {
>>>   			cputm = kvm_s390_get_cpu_timer(vcpu);
>> I think it would assist with readability if you defined the sign 
>> comparison bit. Seeing
>> something that yells "SIGNED" would make sense as to what's going on here.
> 
> If we want that than I suggest introducing defines for all control
> registers we use in kvm code in a separate patch.

We could add those defines to 
arch/s390/include/asm/ctl_reg.h

--
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