Re: [PATCH v10 2/3] KVM: s390: guest support for topology function

[Pierre Morel <pmorel@linux.ibm.com>]

On 6/28/22 10:59, Janis Schoetterl-Glausch wrote:
> On 6/20/22 14:54, Pierre Morel wrote:
>> We report a topology change to the guest for any CPU hotplug.
>>
>> The reporting to the guest is done using the Multiprocessor
>> Topology-Change-Report (MTCR) bit of the utility entry in the guest's
>> SCA which will be cleared during the interpretation of PTF.
>>
>> On every vCPU creation we set the MCTR bit to let the guest know the
>> next time he uses the PTF with command 2 instruction that the
>> topology changed and that he should use the STSI(15.1.x) instruction
>> to get the topology details.
>>
>> STSI(15.1.x) gives information on the CPU configuration topology.
>> Let's accept the interception of STSI with the function code 15 and
>> let the userland part of the hypervisor handle it when userland
>> support the CPU Topology facility.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Pierre Morel <pmorel@linux.ibm.com>
>> ---
>>   arch/s390/include/asm/kvm_host.h | 11 ++++++++---
>>   arch/s390/kvm/kvm-s390.c         | 27 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
>>   arch/s390/kvm/priv.c             | 15 +++++++++++----
>>   arch/s390/kvm/vsie.c             |  3 +++
>>   4 files changed, 48 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
>>
> [...]
> 
>> diff --git a/arch/s390/kvm/kvm-s390.c b/arch/s390/kvm/kvm-s390.c
>> index 8fcb56141689..95b96019ca8e 100644
>> --- a/arch/s390/kvm/kvm-s390.c
>> +++ b/arch/s390/kvm/kvm-s390.c
>> @@ -1691,6 +1691,25 @@ static int kvm_s390_get_cpu_model(struct kvm *kvm, struct kvm_device_attr *attr)
>>   	return ret;
>>   }
>>
>> +/**
>> + * kvm_s390_sca_set_mtcr
> 
> I wonder if there is a better name, kvm_s390_report_topology_change maybe?
> 
>> + * @kvm: guest KVM description
>> + *
>> + * Is only relevant if the topology facility is present,
>> + * the caller should check KVM facility 11
>> + *
>> + * Updates the Multiprocessor Topology-Change-Report to signal
>> + * the guest with a topology change.
>> + */
>> +static void kvm_s390_sca_set_mtcr(struct kvm *kvm)
>> +{
> 
> Do we need a sca_lock read_section here? If we don't why not?
> Did not see one up the stack, but I might have overlooked something.

Yes we do.
As I said about your well justified comment in a previous mail, 
ipte_lock is not the right thing to use here and I will replace with an 
inter locked update.

> 
>> +	struct bsca_block *sca = kvm->arch.sca; /* SCA version doesn't matter */
>> +
>> +	ipte_lock(kvm);
>> +	sca->utility |= SCA_UTILITY_MTCR;
>> +	ipte_unlock(kvm);
>> +}
>> +
> 
> [...]
> 

-- 
Pierre Morel
IBM Lab Boeblingen