On 01.02.19 15:35, Cornelia Huck wrote:
> On Thu, 31 Jan 2019 18:50:57 -0500
> Tony Krowiak <akrowiak@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>> On 1/31/19 4:55 AM, Cornelia Huck wrote:
>>> On Wed, 30 Jan 2019 12:48:46 -0500
>>> Tony Krowiak <akrowiak@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> Two questions:
>>> - Does the event cover _any_ change to the AP configuration, or can the
>>> periodic scan detect changes that are not signaled?
>> It can detect any change, such as a change to the CRYCB masks.
> Nice. I suppose we can not rely on those messages being generated,
> though, and therefore need to keep the periodic scan...
As you wrote, I am not sure if the ap bus code can rely on this to
cover all changes. For kvm guests I think it is currently not working
as there is no such notification generated at all. So I'd like to
have the periodic scan in place.
>
>>> - Do we want to generate such an event in QEMU on plugging/unplugging
>>> the vfio-ap device?
>> We've discussed this quite a bit internally and decided not to implement
>> that at this time. We will address it as a future enhancement.
> Ok, but I think it would be nice to have.
>
>>>> diff --git a/drivers/s390/cio/chsc.c b/drivers/s390/cio/chsc.c
>>>> index a0baee25134c..dccccc337078 100644
>>>> --- a/drivers/s390/cio/chsc.c
>>>> +++ b/drivers/s390/cio/chsc.c
>>>> @@ -586,6 +586,15 @@ static void chsc_process_sei_scm_avail(struct chsc_sei_nt0_area *sei_area)
>>>> " failed (rc=%d).\n", ret);
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>> +static void chsc_process_sei_ap_cfg_chg(struct chsc_sei_nt0_area *sei_area)
>>>> +{
>>>> + CIO_CRW_EVENT(3, "chsc: ap config changed\n");
>>>> + if (sei_area->rs != 5)
>>>> + return;
>>> I'm guessing that a reporting source of 5 means ap, right? (The code is
>>> silent on all those magic rs values :/)
>> The 5 indicates the accessibility of one or more adjunct processors has
>> changed. The reason this gets called is because the CC sent with the
>> instruction indicates the AP configuration has changed, so the reporting
>> belongs where it is. There is only one RS associated with it.
> So if we'd ever get there anything but rs == 5, it would be a hardware
> or hypervisor bug? Then the code makes sense, I guess.
>
>>> If so, should the debug logging be moved after the check?
>> covered in the response above.
>>
>>>
>>>> +
>>>> + ap_bus_cfg_chg();
>>>> +}
>>>> +
