On 8/9/21 12:12 PM, Janosch Frank wrote:
On 8/9/21 10:48 AM, Pierre Morel 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)));
We don't actually need that I made a mistake in stsi_get_fc().
I'll comment in the other patch.
OK I saw.
thx
+int machine_level;
+int mnest;
+
+#define PTF_HORIZONTAL 0
+#define PTF_VERTICAL 1
PTF_REQ_*
OK
+#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"
+ " 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");
Please leave a \n after a report for readability.
OK
+ 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");
I've yet to look into your KVM/qemu code so I don't really understand
what you're testing here and why we can expect to get those results.
In KVM please ignore the stupid patch 3 commented by Heiko and that will
disappear.
It changes nothing to the first two patches.
OK, I will add some comments to explain what we await and why.
Maybe add a comment?
Also what will happen if we start this test under LPAR or z/VM, will it
fail?
The last one may fail, PTF would succeed AFAIU under LPAR.
For z/VM, no idea.
+
+ report_prefix_pop();
+}
+
+int main(int argc, char *argv[])
+{
+ report_prefix_push("stsi");
Where did you copy that test from? :-)
:) yes cut and paste, I will change trhe prefix to "CPU Topology"
+
+ if (!test_facility(11)) {
+ report_skip("Topology facility not present");
+ goto end;
+ }
+
+ report_info("Machine level %ld", stsi_get_fc(pagebuf));
+
+ test_ptf();
+end:
report_prefix_pop is missing here
Right.
will add.
+ return report_summary();
+}
diff --git a/s390x/unittests.cfg b/s390x/unittests.cfg
index 9e1802fd..0f84d279 100644
--- a/s390x/unittests.cfg
+++ b/s390x/unittests.cfg
@@ -109,3 +109,6 @@ file = edat.elf
[mvpg-sie]
file = mvpg-sie.elf
+
+[topology]
+file = topology.elf
Thanks,
Pierre
--
Pierre Morel
IBM Lab Boeblingen
