On 27.11.18 18:21, Cornelia Huck wrote:
On Tue, 27 Nov 2018 18:12:07 +0100
Michael Mueller <mimu@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 26.11.18 17:32, Cornelia Huck wrote:
On Mon, 19 Nov 2018 18:25:27 +0100
Michael Mueller <mimu@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
@@ -2895,6 +2897,7 @@ void kvm_s390_gisa_init(struct kvm *kvm)
kvm->arch.gisa = &kvm->arch.sie_page2->gisa;
VM_EVENT(kvm, 3, "gisa 0x%pK initialized", kvm->arch.gisa);
kvm_s390_gisa_clear(kvm);
+ kvm->arch.gib_in_use = !!gib;
So, that's basically gib && aiv?
}
}
@@ -2904,3 +2907,37 @@ void kvm_s390_gisa_destroy(struct kvm *kvm)
return;
kvm->arch.gisa = NULL;
}
+
+void kvm_s390_gib_destroy(void)
+{
+ if (!gib)
+ return;
+ chsc_sgib(0);
+ free_page((unsigned long)gib);
+ gib = NULL;
+}
+
+int kvm_s390_gib_init(u8 nisc)
+{
+ if (!css_general_characteristics.aiv) {
+ KVM_EVENT(3, "%s", "gib not initialized, no AIV facility");
+ return 0;
+ }
+
+ gib = (struct kvm_s390_gib *)get_zeroed_page(GFP_KERNEL | GFP_DMA);
+ if (!gib) {
+ KVM_EVENT(3, "gib 0x%pK memory allocation failed", gib);
+ return -ENOMEM;
+ }
+
+ gib->nisc = nisc;
+ if (chsc_sgib((u32)(u64)gib)) {
+ KVM_EVENT(3, "gib 0x%pK AIV association failed", gib);
+ free_page((unsigned long)gib);
+ gib = NULL;
+ return -EIO;
+ }
+
+ KVM_EVENT(3, "gib 0x%pK (nisc=%d) initialized", gib, gib->nisc);
+ return 0;
+}
And given that you now fail initializing the vm if aiv is present but
you could not setup the gib (which makes sense), isn't it enough to
either check for aiv or gib, instead of adding gib_in_use? (There's
always a pointer to a valid gisa if aiv.) What am I missing?
In addition there is the vSIE case where I have no AIV and thus no GISA.
Yes, but that should be covered by a !aiv check, shouldn't it?
Both checks are already there and the information is stored in:
kvm->arch.gisa != NULL
But it works only because a failing gib_init() drags everything down.
The functions where the test is used are semantically related to the
GIB, thus using (kvm->arch.gisa) as test might be confusing.
I will prepare and see how the codes reads...
Thanks a lot for your comments today!
Michael
