On 8/9/21 12:03 PM, Claudio Imbrenda wrote:
On Mon, 9 Aug 2021 10:48:53 +0200
Pierre Morel <pmorel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
We check the PTF instruction.
- We do not expect to support vertical polarization.
- We do not expect the Modified Topology Change Report to be
pending or not at the moment the first PTF instruction with
PTF_CHECK function code is done as some code already did run
a polarization change may have occur.
Signed-off-by: Pierre Morel <pmorel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
---
s390x/Makefile | 1 +
s390x/topology.c | 87
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ s390x/unittests.cfg |
3 ++ 3 files changed, 91 insertions(+)
create mode 100644 s390x/topology.c
diff --git a/s390x/Makefile b/s390x/Makefile
index 6565561b..c82b7dbf 100644
--- a/s390x/Makefile
+++ b/s390x/Makefile
@@ -24,6 +24,7 @@ tests += $(TEST_DIR)/mvpg.elf
tests += $(TEST_DIR)/uv-host.elf
tests += $(TEST_DIR)/edat.elf
tests += $(TEST_DIR)/mvpg-sie.elf
+tests += $(TEST_DIR)/topology.elf
tests_binary = $(patsubst %.elf,%.bin,$(tests))
ifneq ($(HOST_KEY_DOCUMENT),)
diff --git a/s390x/topology.c b/s390x/topology.c
new file mode 100644
index 00000000..4146189a
--- /dev/null
+++ b/s390x/topology.c
@@ -0,0 +1,87 @@
+/* SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0-only */
+/*
+ * CPU Topology
+ *
+ * Copyright (c) 2021 IBM Corp
+ *
+ * Authors:
+ * Pierre Morel <pmorel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
+ */
+
+#include <libcflat.h>
+#include <asm/page.h>
+#include <asm/asm-offsets.h>
+#include <asm/interrupt.h>
+#include <asm/facility.h>
+#include <smp.h>
+#include <sclp.h>
+
+static uint8_t pagebuf[PAGE_SIZE * 2]
__attribute__((aligned(PAGE_SIZE * 2))); +int machine_level;
+int mnest;
+
+#define PTF_HORIZONTAL 0
+#define PTF_VERTICAL 1
+#define PTF_CHECK 2
+
+#define PTF_ERR_NO_REASON 0
+#define PTF_ERR_ALRDY_POLARIZED 1
+#define PTF_ERR_IN_PROGRESS 2
+
+static int ptf(unsigned long fc, unsigned long *rc)
+{
+ int cc;
+
+ asm volatile(
+ " .insn rre,0xb9a20000,%1,%1\n"
I know you copied this from the kernel, but the second argument is not
really there according to the PoP, so maybe it's better to have this
instead?
.insn rre,0xb9a20000,%1,0\n
OK, thanks.
+ " ipm %0\n"
+ " srl %0,28\n"
+ : "=d" (cc), "+d" (fc)
+ : "d" (fc)
+ : "cc");
+
+ *rc = fc >> 8;
+ return cc;
+}
+
+static void test_ptf(void)
+{
+ unsigned long rc;
+ int cc;
+
+ report_prefix_push("Topology Report pending");
+ /*
+ * At this moment the topology may already have changed
+ * since the VM has been started.
+ * However, we can test if a second PTF instruction
+ * reports that the topology did not change since the
+ * preceding PFT instruction.
+ */
+ ptf(PTF_CHECK, &rc);
+ cc = ptf(PTF_CHECK, &rc);
+ report(cc == 0, "PTF check clear");
+ cc = ptf(PTF_HORIZONTAL, &rc);
+ report(cc == 2 && rc == PTF_ERR_ALRDY_POLARIZED,
+ "PTF horizontal already configured");
+ cc = ptf(PTF_VERTICAL, &rc);
+ report(cc == 2 && rc == PTF_ERR_NO_REASON,
+ "PTF vertical non possible");
*not possible
Oh yes :)
+
+ report_prefix_pop();
+}
+
+int main(int argc, char *argv[])
+{
+ report_prefix_push("stsi");
should this really be "stsi" ?
No, I think CPU-Topology should be better.
--
Pierre Morel
IBM Lab Boeblingen
