From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8D76EC433F5 for ; Tue, 28 Sep 2021 16:28:40 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6E8CB60F5B for ; Tue, 28 Sep 2021 16:28:40 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S241764AbhI1QaT (ORCPT ); Tue, 28 Sep 2021 12:30:19 -0400 Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com ([216.205.24.124]:51422 "EHLO us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S241751AbhI1QaS (ORCPT ); Tue, 28 Sep 2021 12:30:18 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1632846519; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=kDCcNu7bbsfB2wNWfie8bDssTuWuW0RZ7Ty63uv/r1M=; b=QMlDOF7JNG3mzUf4KMb0TYen90uf/QF8iG+TZDlLBd64PlaNWc8Ke2kR+tIaxs22+Yw6ub 6MdcL8WAU2Xbbt0Hnim+gdMhvTwAHWzyHdlQFuYyQXmPYGOrwOLu1yJkyPi9KzoR+07wqs gwuHVvxSVxB2geu6VUch9k3DriJBewg= Received: from mail-wm1-f72.google.com (mail-wm1-f72.google.com [209.85.128.72]) (Using TLS) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP id us-mta-479-eRP4RF3HOTunlk5ysr5F9g-1; Tue, 28 Sep 2021 12:28:37 -0400 X-MC-Unique: eRP4RF3HOTunlk5ysr5F9g-1 Received: by mail-wm1-f72.google.com with SMTP id p25-20020a1c5459000000b0030cac3d9db1so2284560wmi.6 for ; Tue, 28 Sep 2021 09:28:37 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language :content-transfer-encoding; bh=kDCcNu7bbsfB2wNWfie8bDssTuWuW0RZ7Ty63uv/r1M=; b=f7sIHoKUSiVf0OZYZ4MGweH+SfgBvck+K/csTj+0w5TW9pC48YZAsgghyQIHCMwK0G zrLti7/ISFk96AtifHifFQcvlhEOwRDP9LYj9ls906o7f9oWTVn36Rklu71gNlWu6VSD m3nasZsn9P0KocPCvx5wrMtHT1rj5EQzSSJ+9p+cvutaoF7jrqGQzAtl3TU6IE23i4G2 eKS2N3+AHMzeUpDOcoQsXvpA0wNAPggBQqqIimNwCqD1ts75gxTcXPg/P3OeY9bGAxXR 6UTnZNyVSDeLm4Wp9022KcpuTHC+8286Df1mFjxAD752/YqjWyBOA1gGc8g5PSlg1HC3 ZClg== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM5307SBGWW6YYHfN88IWVSQiihpyg6bfhYeE5O8S3e/fX1oSJ1euo IdkTwlg5mWLpwoR3QufU/YK9wZz2TteL66fnXwn95bWk12ex+jaH3yv2HBTG0j5Td/nEn4z8CkD b4ioaxijFlBQwIOiBzD0XHA== X-Received: by 2002:a05:600c:4f4e:: with SMTP id m14mr1696431wmq.5.1632846516274; Tue, 28 Sep 2021 09:28:36 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJyIGMbxvDql9Inlzz0uxzDc/AHYI9ULKoRx1AnDuL2Kv0h7yV7lWnzfXvMGEKmlsCahAE96iA== X-Received: by 2002:a05:600c:4f4e:: with SMTP id m14mr1696413wmq.5.1632846516070; Tue, 28 Sep 2021 09:28:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: from thuth.remote.csb (p549bb2bd.dip0.t-ipconnect.de. [84.155.178.189]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id y11sm24343663wrg.18.2021.09.28.09.28.34 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Tue, 28 Sep 2021 09:28:35 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: [kvm-unit-tests PATCH 3/9] s390x: uv-host: Fence a destroy cpu test on z15 To: Janosch Frank , kvm@vger.kernel.org Cc: david@redhat.com, linux-s390@vger.kernel.org, seiden@linux.ibm.com, imbrenda@linux.ibm.com References: <20210922071811.1913-1-frankja@linux.ibm.com> <20210922071811.1913-4-frankja@linux.ibm.com> <8035a911-4a76-50ed-cb07-edce48abdb9c@redhat.com> <11d1b08d-6605-97f7-84f3-49f20f8cc0c2@linux.ibm.com> From: Thomas Huth Message-ID: <604002cd-93e5-9495-aa87-df49d0e9a651@redhat.com> Date: Tue, 28 Sep 2021 18:28:33 +0200 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.13.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <11d1b08d-6605-97f7-84f3-49f20f8cc0c2@linux.ibm.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-s390@vger.kernel.org On 28/09/2021 13.21, Janosch Frank wrote: > On 9/27/21 17:26, Thomas Huth wrote: >> On 22/09/2021 09.18, Janosch Frank wrote: >>> Firmware will not give us the expected return code on z15 so let's >>> fence it for the z15 machine generation. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Janosch Frank >>> --- >>>    lib/s390x/asm/arch_def.h | 14 ++++++++++++++ >>>    s390x/uv-host.c          | 11 +++++++---- >>>    2 files changed, 21 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) >>> >>> diff --git a/lib/s390x/asm/arch_def.h b/lib/s390x/asm/arch_def.h >>> index aa80d840..c8d2722a 100644 >>> --- a/lib/s390x/asm/arch_def.h >>> +++ b/lib/s390x/asm/arch_def.h >>> @@ -219,6 +219,20 @@ static inline unsigned short stap(void) >>>        return cpu_address; >>>    } >>> +#define MACHINE_Z15A    0x8561 >>> +#define MACHINE_Z15B    0x8562 >>> + >>> +static inline uint16_t get_machine_id(void) >>> +{ >>> +    uint64_t cpuid; >>> + >>> +    asm volatile("stidp %0" : "=Q" (cpuid)); >>> +    cpuid = cpuid >> 16; >>> +    cpuid &= 0xffff; You could skip the masking line since the function returns an uint61_t anyway. >>> + >>> +    return cpuid; >>> +} >>> + >>>    static inline int tprot(unsigned long addr) >>>    { >>>        int cc; >>> diff --git a/s390x/uv-host.c b/s390x/uv-host.c >>> index 66a11160..5e351120 100644 >>> --- a/s390x/uv-host.c >>> +++ b/s390x/uv-host.c >>> @@ -111,6 +111,7 @@ static void test_config_destroy(void) >>>    static void test_cpu_destroy(void) >>>    { >>>        int rc; >>> +    uint16_t machineid = get_machine_id(); >>>        struct uv_cb_nodata uvcb = { >>>            .header.len = sizeof(uvcb), >>>            .header.cmd = UVC_CMD_DESTROY_SEC_CPU, >>> @@ -125,10 +126,12 @@ static void test_cpu_destroy(void) >>>               "hdr invalid length"); >>>        uvcb.header.len += 8; >>> -    uvcb.handle += 1; >>> -    rc = uv_call(0, (uint64_t)&uvcb); >>> -    report(rc == 1 && uvcb.header.rc == UVC_RC_INV_CHANDLE, "invalid >>> handle"); >>> -    uvcb.handle -= 1; >>> +    if (machineid != MACHINE_Z15A && machineid != MACHINE_Z15B) { >>> +        uvcb.handle += 1; >>> +        rc = uv_call(0, (uint64_t)&uvcb); >>> +        report(rc == 1 && uvcb.header.rc == UVC_RC_INV_CHANDLE, "invalid >>> handle"); >>> +        uvcb.handle -= 1; >>> +    } >> >> So this is a bug in the firmware? Any chance that it will still get fixed >> for the z15? If so, would it make sense to turn this into a report_xfail() >> instead? >> >>    Thomas >> > > No, a xfail will not help here. Ok, fair, then I think the patch is fine: Acked-by: Thomas Huth