All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
* [PATCH v10 0/3] s390x: KVM: CPU Topology
@ 2022-06-20 12:54 Pierre Morel
  2022-06-20 12:54 ` [PATCH v10 1/3] KVM: s390: ipte lock for SCA access should be contained in KVM Pierre Morel
                   ` (2 more replies)
  0 siblings, 3 replies; 29+ messages in thread
From: Pierre Morel @ 2022-06-20 12:54 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: kvm
  Cc: linux-s390, linux-kernel, borntraeger, frankja, cohuck, david,
	thuth, imbrenda, hca, gor, pmorel, wintera, seiden, nrb

Hi all,

This new spin suppress the check for real cpu migration and
modify the checking of valid function code inside the interception
of the STSI instruction.

The series provides:
0- Modification of the ipte lock handling to use KVM instead of the
   vcpu as an argument because ipte lock work on SCA which is uniq
   per KVM structure and common to all vCPUs.
1- interception of the STSI instruction forwarding the CPU topology
2- interpretation of the PTF instruction
3- a KVM capability for the userland hypervisor to ask KVM to 
   setup PTF interpretation.
4- KVM ioctl to get and set the MTCR bit of the SCA in order to
   migrate this bit during a migration.


0- Foreword

The S390 CPU topology is reported using two instructions:
- PTF, to get information if the CPU topology did change since last
  PTF instruction or a subsystem reset.
- STSI, to get the topology information, consisting of the topology
  of the CPU inside the sockets, of the sockets inside the books etc.

The PTF(2) instruction report a change if the STSI(15.1.2) instruction
will report a difference with the last STSI(15.1.2) instruction*.
With the SIE interpretation, the PTF(2) instruction will report a
change to the guest if the host sets the SCA.MTCR bit.

*The STSI(15.1.2) instruction reports:
- The cores address within a socket
- The polarization of the cores
- The CPU type of the cores
- If the cores are dedicated or not

We decided to implement the CPU topology for S390 in several steps:

- first we report CPU hotplug

In future development we will provide:

- modification of the CPU mask inside sockets
- handling of shared CPUs
- reporting of the CPU Type
- reporting of the polarization


1- Interception of STSI

To provide Topology information to the guest through the STSI
instruction, we forward STSI with Function Code 15 to the
userland hypervisor which will take care to provide the right
information to the guest.

To let the guest use both the PTF instruction  to check if a topology
change occurred and sthe STSI_15.x.x instruction we add a new KVM
capability to enable the topology facility.

2- Interpretation of PTF with FC(2)

The PTF instruction reports a topology change if there is any change
with a previous STSI(15.1.2) SYSIB.

Changes inside a STSI(15.1.2) SYSIB occur if CPU bits are set or clear
inside the CPU Topology List Entry CPU mask field, which happens with
changes in CPU polarization, dedication, CPU types and adding or
removing CPUs in a socket.

Considering that the KVM guests currently only supports:
- horizontal polarization
- type 3 (Linux) CPU

And that we decide to support only:
- dedicated CPUs on the host
- pinned vCPUs on the guest

the creation of vCPU will is the only trigger to set the MTCR bit for
a guest.

The reporting to the guest is done using the Multiprocessor
Topology-Change-Report (MTCR) bit of the utility entry of the guest's
SCA which will be cleared during the interpretation of PTF.

Regards,
Pierre

Pierre Morel (3):
  KVM: s390: ipte lock for SCA access should be contained in KVM
  KVM: s390: guest support for topology function
  KVM: s390: resetting the Topology-Change-Report

 Documentation/virt/kvm/api.rst   |  31 ++++++++
 arch/s390/include/asm/kvm_host.h |  11 ++-
 arch/s390/include/uapi/asm/kvm.h |  10 +++
 arch/s390/kvm/gaccess.c          |  96 ++++++++++++------------
 arch/s390/kvm/gaccess.h          |   6 +-
 arch/s390/kvm/kvm-s390.c         | 123 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
 arch/s390/kvm/priv.c             |  21 ++++--
 arch/s390/kvm/vsie.c             |   3 +
 include/uapi/linux/kvm.h         |   1 +
 9 files changed, 240 insertions(+), 62 deletions(-)

-- 
2.31.1

Changelog:

from v9 to v10

- Suppression of the check on real CPU migration
  (Christian)

- Changed the check on fc in handle_stsi
  (David)

from v8 to v9

- bug correction in kvm_s390_topology_changed
  (Heiko)

- simplification for ipte_lock/unlock to use kvm
  as arg instead of vcpu and test on sclp.has_siif
  instead of the SIE ECA_SII.
  (David)

- use of a single value for reporting if the
  topology changed instead of a structure
  (David)

from v7 to v8

- implement reset handling
  (Janosch)

- change the way to check if the topology changed
  (Nico, Heiko)

from v6 to v7

- rebase

from v5 to v6

- make the subject more accurate
  (Claudio)

- Change the kvm_s390_set_mtcr() function to have vcpu in the name
  (Janosch)

- Replace the checks on ECB_PTF wit the check of facility 11
  (Janosch)

- modify kvm_arch_vcpu_load, move the check in a function in
  the header file
  (Janosh)

- No magical number replace the "new cpu value" of -1 with a define
  (Janosch)

- Make the checks for STSI validity clearer
  (Janosch)

from v4 tp v5

- modify the way KVM_CAP is tested to be OK with vsie
  (David)

from v3 to v4

- squatch both patches
  (David)

- Added Documentation
  (David)

- Modified the detection for new vCPUs
  (Pierre)

from v2 to v3

- use PTF interpretation
  (Christian)

- optimize arch_update_cpu_topology using PTF
  (Pierre)

from v1 to v2:

- Add a KVM capability to let QEMU know we support PTF and STSI 15
  (David)

- check KVM facility 11 before accepting STSI fc 15
  (David)

- handle all we can in userland
  (David)

- add tracing to STSI fc 15
  (Connie)


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 29+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v10 1/3] KVM: s390: ipte lock for SCA access should be contained in KVM
  2022-06-20 12:54 [PATCH v10 0/3] s390x: KVM: CPU Topology Pierre Morel
@ 2022-06-20 12:54 ` Pierre Morel
  2022-06-24  5:47   ` Janosch Frank
                     ` (2 more replies)
  2022-06-20 12:54 ` [PATCH v10 2/3] KVM: s390: guest support for topology function Pierre Morel
  2022-06-20 12:54 ` [PATCH v10 3/3] KVM: s390: resetting the Topology-Change-Report Pierre Morel
  2 siblings, 3 replies; 29+ messages in thread
From: Pierre Morel @ 2022-06-20 12:54 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: kvm
  Cc: linux-s390, linux-kernel, borntraeger, frankja, cohuck, david,
	thuth, imbrenda, hca, gor, pmorel, wintera, seiden, nrb

We can check if SIIF is enabled by testing the sclp_info struct
instead of testing the sie control block eca variable.
sclp.has_ssif is the only requirement to set ECA_SII anyway
so we can go straight to the source for that.

Signed-off-by: Pierre Morel <pmorel@linux.ibm.com>
Reviewed-by: Janosch Frank <frankja@linux.ibm.com>
Reviewed-by: David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>
---
 arch/s390/kvm/gaccess.c | 96 ++++++++++++++++++++---------------------
 arch/s390/kvm/gaccess.h |  6 +--
 arch/s390/kvm/priv.c    |  6 +--
 3 files changed, 54 insertions(+), 54 deletions(-)

diff --git a/arch/s390/kvm/gaccess.c b/arch/s390/kvm/gaccess.c
index 227ed0009354..082ec5f2c3a5 100644
--- a/arch/s390/kvm/gaccess.c
+++ b/arch/s390/kvm/gaccess.c
@@ -262,77 +262,77 @@ struct aste {
 	/* .. more fields there */
 };
 
-int ipte_lock_held(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
+int ipte_lock_held(struct kvm *kvm)
 {
-	if (vcpu->arch.sie_block->eca & ECA_SII) {
+	if (sclp.has_siif) {
 		int rc;
 
-		read_lock(&vcpu->kvm->arch.sca_lock);
-		rc = kvm_s390_get_ipte_control(vcpu->kvm)->kh != 0;
-		read_unlock(&vcpu->kvm->arch.sca_lock);
+		read_lock(&kvm->arch.sca_lock);
+		rc = kvm_s390_get_ipte_control(kvm)->kh != 0;
+		read_unlock(&kvm->arch.sca_lock);
 		return rc;
 	}
-	return vcpu->kvm->arch.ipte_lock_count != 0;
+	return kvm->arch.ipte_lock_count != 0;
 }
 
-static void ipte_lock_simple(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
+static void ipte_lock_simple(struct kvm *kvm)
 {
 	union ipte_control old, new, *ic;
 
-	mutex_lock(&vcpu->kvm->arch.ipte_mutex);
-	vcpu->kvm->arch.ipte_lock_count++;
-	if (vcpu->kvm->arch.ipte_lock_count > 1)
+	mutex_lock(&kvm->arch.ipte_mutex);
+	kvm->arch.ipte_lock_count++;
+	if (kvm->arch.ipte_lock_count > 1)
 		goto out;
 retry:
-	read_lock(&vcpu->kvm->arch.sca_lock);
-	ic = kvm_s390_get_ipte_control(vcpu->kvm);
+	read_lock(&kvm->arch.sca_lock);
+	ic = kvm_s390_get_ipte_control(kvm);
 	do {
 		old = READ_ONCE(*ic);
 		if (old.k) {
-			read_unlock(&vcpu->kvm->arch.sca_lock);
+			read_unlock(&kvm->arch.sca_lock);
 			cond_resched();
 			goto retry;
 		}
 		new = old;
 		new.k = 1;
 	} while (cmpxchg(&ic->val, old.val, new.val) != old.val);
-	read_unlock(&vcpu->kvm->arch.sca_lock);
+	read_unlock(&kvm->arch.sca_lock);
 out:
-	mutex_unlock(&vcpu->kvm->arch.ipte_mutex);
+	mutex_unlock(&kvm->arch.ipte_mutex);
 }
 
-static void ipte_unlock_simple(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
+static void ipte_unlock_simple(struct kvm *kvm)
 {
 	union ipte_control old, new, *ic;
 
-	mutex_lock(&vcpu->kvm->arch.ipte_mutex);
-	vcpu->kvm->arch.ipte_lock_count--;
-	if (vcpu->kvm->arch.ipte_lock_count)
+	mutex_lock(&kvm->arch.ipte_mutex);
+	kvm->arch.ipte_lock_count--;
+	if (kvm->arch.ipte_lock_count)
 		goto out;
-	read_lock(&vcpu->kvm->arch.sca_lock);
-	ic = kvm_s390_get_ipte_control(vcpu->kvm);
+	read_lock(&kvm->arch.sca_lock);
+	ic = kvm_s390_get_ipte_control(kvm);
 	do {
 		old = READ_ONCE(*ic);
 		new = old;
 		new.k = 0;
 	} while (cmpxchg(&ic->val, old.val, new.val) != old.val);
-	read_unlock(&vcpu->kvm->arch.sca_lock);
-	wake_up(&vcpu->kvm->arch.ipte_wq);
+	read_unlock(&kvm->arch.sca_lock);
+	wake_up(&kvm->arch.ipte_wq);
 out:
-	mutex_unlock(&vcpu->kvm->arch.ipte_mutex);
+	mutex_unlock(&kvm->arch.ipte_mutex);
 }
 
-static void ipte_lock_siif(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
+static void ipte_lock_siif(struct kvm *kvm)
 {
 	union ipte_control old, new, *ic;
 
 retry:
-	read_lock(&vcpu->kvm->arch.sca_lock);
-	ic = kvm_s390_get_ipte_control(vcpu->kvm);
+	read_lock(&kvm->arch.sca_lock);
+	ic = kvm_s390_get_ipte_control(kvm);
 	do {
 		old = READ_ONCE(*ic);
 		if (old.kg) {
-			read_unlock(&vcpu->kvm->arch.sca_lock);
+			read_unlock(&kvm->arch.sca_lock);
 			cond_resched();
 			goto retry;
 		}
@@ -340,15 +340,15 @@ static void ipte_lock_siif(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
 		new.k = 1;
 		new.kh++;
 	} while (cmpxchg(&ic->val, old.val, new.val) != old.val);
-	read_unlock(&vcpu->kvm->arch.sca_lock);
+	read_unlock(&kvm->arch.sca_lock);
 }
 
-static void ipte_unlock_siif(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
+static void ipte_unlock_siif(struct kvm *kvm)
 {
 	union ipte_control old, new, *ic;
 
-	read_lock(&vcpu->kvm->arch.sca_lock);
-	ic = kvm_s390_get_ipte_control(vcpu->kvm);
+	read_lock(&kvm->arch.sca_lock);
+	ic = kvm_s390_get_ipte_control(kvm);
 	do {
 		old = READ_ONCE(*ic);
 		new = old;
@@ -356,25 +356,25 @@ static void ipte_unlock_siif(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
 		if (!new.kh)
 			new.k = 0;
 	} while (cmpxchg(&ic->val, old.val, new.val) != old.val);
-	read_unlock(&vcpu->kvm->arch.sca_lock);
+	read_unlock(&kvm->arch.sca_lock);
 	if (!new.kh)
-		wake_up(&vcpu->kvm->arch.ipte_wq);
+		wake_up(&kvm->arch.ipte_wq);
 }
 
-void ipte_lock(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
+void ipte_lock(struct kvm *kvm)
 {
-	if (vcpu->arch.sie_block->eca & ECA_SII)
-		ipte_lock_siif(vcpu);
+	if (sclp.has_siif)
+		ipte_lock_siif(kvm);
 	else
-		ipte_lock_simple(vcpu);
+		ipte_lock_simple(kvm);
 }
 
-void ipte_unlock(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
+void ipte_unlock(struct kvm *kvm)
 {
-	if (vcpu->arch.sie_block->eca & ECA_SII)
-		ipte_unlock_siif(vcpu);
+	if (sclp.has_siif)
+		ipte_unlock_siif(kvm);
 	else
-		ipte_unlock_simple(vcpu);
+		ipte_unlock_simple(kvm);
 }
 
 static int ar_translation(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, union asce *asce, u8 ar,
@@ -1086,7 +1086,7 @@ int access_guest_with_key(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, unsigned long ga, u8 ar,
 	try_storage_prot_override = storage_prot_override_applicable(vcpu);
 	need_ipte_lock = psw_bits(*psw).dat && !asce.r;
 	if (need_ipte_lock)
-		ipte_lock(vcpu);
+		ipte_lock(vcpu->kvm);
 	/*
 	 * Since we do the access further down ultimately via a move instruction
 	 * that does key checking and returns an error in case of a protection
@@ -1127,7 +1127,7 @@ int access_guest_with_key(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, unsigned long ga, u8 ar,
 	}
 out_unlock:
 	if (need_ipte_lock)
-		ipte_unlock(vcpu);
+		ipte_unlock(vcpu->kvm);
 	if (nr_pages > ARRAY_SIZE(gpa_array))
 		vfree(gpas);
 	return rc;
@@ -1199,10 +1199,10 @@ int check_gva_range(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, unsigned long gva, u8 ar,
 	rc = get_vcpu_asce(vcpu, &asce, gva, ar, mode);
 	if (rc)
 		return rc;
-	ipte_lock(vcpu);
+	ipte_lock(vcpu->kvm);
 	rc = guest_range_to_gpas(vcpu, gva, ar, NULL, length, asce, mode,
 				 access_key);
-	ipte_unlock(vcpu);
+	ipte_unlock(vcpu->kvm);
 
 	return rc;
 }
@@ -1465,7 +1465,7 @@ int kvm_s390_shadow_fault(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, struct gmap *sg,
 	 * tables/pointers we read stay valid - unshadowing is however
 	 * always possible - only guest_table_lock protects us.
 	 */
-	ipte_lock(vcpu);
+	ipte_lock(vcpu->kvm);
 
 	rc = gmap_shadow_pgt_lookup(sg, saddr, &pgt, &dat_protection, &fake);
 	if (rc)
@@ -1499,7 +1499,7 @@ int kvm_s390_shadow_fault(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, struct gmap *sg,
 	pte.p |= dat_protection;
 	if (!rc)
 		rc = gmap_shadow_page(sg, saddr, __pte(pte.val));
-	ipte_unlock(vcpu);
+	ipte_unlock(vcpu->kvm);
 	mmap_read_unlock(sg->mm);
 	return rc;
 }
diff --git a/arch/s390/kvm/gaccess.h b/arch/s390/kvm/gaccess.h
index 1124ff282012..9408d6cc8e2c 100644
--- a/arch/s390/kvm/gaccess.h
+++ b/arch/s390/kvm/gaccess.h
@@ -440,9 +440,9 @@ int read_guest_real(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, unsigned long gra, void *data,
 	return access_guest_real(vcpu, gra, data, len, 0);
 }
 
-void ipte_lock(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu);
-void ipte_unlock(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu);
-int ipte_lock_held(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu);
+void ipte_lock(struct kvm *kvm);
+void ipte_unlock(struct kvm *kvm);
+int ipte_lock_held(struct kvm *kvm);
 int kvm_s390_check_low_addr_prot_real(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, unsigned long gra);
 
 /* MVPG PEI indication bits */
diff --git a/arch/s390/kvm/priv.c b/arch/s390/kvm/priv.c
index 83bb5cf97282..12c464c7cddf 100644
--- a/arch/s390/kvm/priv.c
+++ b/arch/s390/kvm/priv.c
@@ -442,7 +442,7 @@ static int handle_ipte_interlock(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
 	vcpu->stat.instruction_ipte_interlock++;
 	if (psw_bits(vcpu->arch.sie_block->gpsw).pstate)
 		return kvm_s390_inject_program_int(vcpu, PGM_PRIVILEGED_OP);
-	wait_event(vcpu->kvm->arch.ipte_wq, !ipte_lock_held(vcpu));
+	wait_event(vcpu->kvm->arch.ipte_wq, !ipte_lock_held(vcpu->kvm));
 	kvm_s390_retry_instr(vcpu);
 	VCPU_EVENT(vcpu, 4, "%s", "retrying ipte interlock operation");
 	return 0;
@@ -1471,7 +1471,7 @@ static int handle_tprot(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
 	access_key = (operand2 & 0xf0) >> 4;
 
 	if (vcpu->arch.sie_block->gpsw.mask & PSW_MASK_DAT)
-		ipte_lock(vcpu);
+		ipte_lock(vcpu->kvm);
 
 	ret = guest_translate_address_with_key(vcpu, address, ar, &gpa,
 					       GACC_STORE, access_key);
@@ -1508,7 +1508,7 @@ static int handle_tprot(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
 	}
 
 	if (vcpu->arch.sie_block->gpsw.mask & PSW_MASK_DAT)
-		ipte_unlock(vcpu);
+		ipte_unlock(vcpu->kvm);
 	return ret;
 }
 
-- 
2.31.1


^ permalink raw reply related	[flat|nested] 29+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v10 2/3] KVM: s390: guest support for topology function
  2022-06-20 12:54 [PATCH v10 0/3] s390x: KVM: CPU Topology Pierre Morel
  2022-06-20 12:54 ` [PATCH v10 1/3] KVM: s390: ipte lock for SCA access should be contained in KVM Pierre Morel
@ 2022-06-20 12:54 ` Pierre Morel
  2022-06-24  6:22   ` Janosch Frank
                     ` (4 more replies)
  2022-06-20 12:54 ` [PATCH v10 3/3] KVM: s390: resetting the Topology-Change-Report Pierre Morel
  2 siblings, 5 replies; 29+ messages in thread
From: Pierre Morel @ 2022-06-20 12:54 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: kvm
  Cc: linux-s390, linux-kernel, borntraeger, frankja, cohuck, david,
	thuth, imbrenda, hca, gor, pmorel, wintera, seiden, nrb

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/include/asm/kvm_host.h b/arch/s390/include/asm/kvm_host.h
index 766028d54a3e..bb54196d4ed6 100644
--- a/arch/s390/include/asm/kvm_host.h
+++ b/arch/s390/include/asm/kvm_host.h
@@ -97,15 +97,19 @@ struct bsca_block {
 	union ipte_control ipte_control;
 	__u64	reserved[5];
 	__u64	mcn;
-	__u64	reserved2;
+#define SCA_UTILITY_MTCR	0x8000
+	__u16	utility;
+	__u8	reserved2[6];
 	struct bsca_entry cpu[KVM_S390_BSCA_CPU_SLOTS];
 };
 
 struct esca_block {
 	union ipte_control ipte_control;
-	__u64   reserved1[7];
+	__u64   reserved1[6];
+	__u16	utility;
+	__u8	reserved2[6];
 	__u64   mcn[4];
-	__u64   reserved2[20];
+	__u64   reserved3[20];
 	struct esca_entry cpu[KVM_S390_ESCA_CPU_SLOTS];
 };
 
@@ -249,6 +253,7 @@ struct kvm_s390_sie_block {
 #define ECB_SPECI	0x08
 #define ECB_SRSI	0x04
 #define ECB_HOSTPROTINT	0x02
+#define ECB_PTF		0x01
 	__u8	ecb;			/* 0x0061 */
 #define ECB2_CMMA	0x80
 #define ECB2_IEP	0x20
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
+ * @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)
+{
+	struct bsca_block *sca = kvm->arch.sca; /* SCA version doesn't matter */
+
+	ipte_lock(kvm);
+	sca->utility |= SCA_UTILITY_MTCR;
+	ipte_unlock(kvm);
+}
+
 static int kvm_s390_vm_set_attr(struct kvm *kvm, struct kvm_device_attr *attr)
 {
 	int ret;
@@ -3143,7 +3162,6 @@ __u64 kvm_s390_get_cpu_timer(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
 
 void kvm_arch_vcpu_load(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, int cpu)
 {
-
 	gmap_enable(vcpu->arch.enabled_gmap);
 	kvm_s390_set_cpuflags(vcpu, CPUSTAT_RUNNING);
 	if (vcpu->arch.cputm_enabled && !is_vcpu_idle(vcpu))
@@ -3272,6 +3290,11 @@ static int kvm_s390_vcpu_setup(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
 		vcpu->arch.sie_block->ecb |= ECB_HOSTPROTINT;
 	if (test_kvm_facility(vcpu->kvm, 9))
 		vcpu->arch.sie_block->ecb |= ECB_SRSI;
+
+	/* PTF needs guest facilities to enable interpretation */
+	if (test_kvm_facility(vcpu->kvm, 11))
+		vcpu->arch.sie_block->ecb |= ECB_PTF;
+
 	if (test_kvm_facility(vcpu->kvm, 73))
 		vcpu->arch.sie_block->ecb |= ECB_TE;
 	if (!kvm_is_ucontrol(vcpu->kvm))
@@ -3403,6 +3426,8 @@ int kvm_arch_vcpu_create(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
 	rc = kvm_s390_vcpu_setup(vcpu);
 	if (rc)
 		goto out_ucontrol_uninit;
+
+	kvm_s390_sca_set_mtcr(vcpu->kvm);
 	return 0;
 
 out_ucontrol_uninit:
diff --git a/arch/s390/kvm/priv.c b/arch/s390/kvm/priv.c
index 12c464c7cddf..77a692238585 100644
--- a/arch/s390/kvm/priv.c
+++ b/arch/s390/kvm/priv.c
@@ -873,10 +873,13 @@ static int handle_stsi(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
 	if (vcpu->arch.sie_block->gpsw.mask & PSW_MASK_PSTATE)
 		return kvm_s390_inject_program_int(vcpu, PGM_PRIVILEGED_OP);
 
-	if (fc > 3) {
-		kvm_s390_set_psw_cc(vcpu, 3);
-		return 0;
-	}
+	/* Bailout forbidden function codes */
+	if (fc > 3 && fc != 15)
+		goto out_no_data;
+
+	/* fc 15 is provided with PTF/CPU topology support */
+	if (fc == 15 && !test_kvm_facility(vcpu->kvm, 11))
+		goto out_no_data;
 
 	if (vcpu->run->s.regs.gprs[0] & 0x0fffff00
 	    || vcpu->run->s.regs.gprs[1] & 0xffff0000)
@@ -910,6 +913,10 @@ static int handle_stsi(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
 			goto out_no_data;
 		handle_stsi_3_2_2(vcpu, (void *) mem);
 		break;
+	case 15:
+		trace_kvm_s390_handle_stsi(vcpu, fc, sel1, sel2, operand2);
+		insert_stsi_usr_data(vcpu, operand2, ar, fc, sel1, sel2);
+		return -EREMOTE;
 	}
 	if (kvm_s390_pv_cpu_is_protected(vcpu)) {
 		memcpy((void *)sida_origin(vcpu->arch.sie_block), (void *)mem,
diff --git a/arch/s390/kvm/vsie.c b/arch/s390/kvm/vsie.c
index dada78b92691..4f4fee697550 100644
--- a/arch/s390/kvm/vsie.c
+++ b/arch/s390/kvm/vsie.c
@@ -503,6 +503,9 @@ static int shadow_scb(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, struct vsie_page *vsie_page)
 	/* Host-protection-interruption introduced with ESOP */
 	if (test_kvm_cpu_feat(vcpu->kvm, KVM_S390_VM_CPU_FEAT_ESOP))
 		scb_s->ecb |= scb_o->ecb & ECB_HOSTPROTINT;
+	/* CPU Topology */
+	if (test_kvm_facility(vcpu->kvm, 11))
+		scb_s->ecb |= scb_o->ecb & ECB_PTF;
 	/* transactional execution */
 	if (test_kvm_facility(vcpu->kvm, 73) && wants_tx) {
 		/* remap the prefix is tx is toggled on */
-- 
2.31.1


^ permalink raw reply related	[flat|nested] 29+ messages in thread

* [PATCH v10 3/3] KVM: s390: resetting the Topology-Change-Report
  2022-06-20 12:54 [PATCH v10 0/3] s390x: KVM: CPU Topology Pierre Morel
  2022-06-20 12:54 ` [PATCH v10 1/3] KVM: s390: ipte lock for SCA access should be contained in KVM Pierre Morel
  2022-06-20 12:54 ` [PATCH v10 2/3] KVM: s390: guest support for topology function Pierre Morel
@ 2022-06-20 12:54 ` Pierre Morel
  2022-06-24  6:50   ` Janosch Frank
  2022-06-28 16:41   ` Janis Schoetterl-Glausch
  2 siblings, 2 replies; 29+ messages in thread
From: Pierre Morel @ 2022-06-20 12:54 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: kvm
  Cc: linux-s390, linux-kernel, borntraeger, frankja, cohuck, david,
	thuth, imbrenda, hca, gor, pmorel, wintera, seiden, nrb

During a subsystem reset the Topology-Change-Report is cleared.
Let's give userland the possibility to clear the MTCR in the case
of a subsystem reset.

To migrate the MTCR, we give userland the possibility to
query the MTCR state.

We indicate KVM support for the CPU topology facility with a new
KVM capability: KVM_CAP_S390_CPU_TOPOLOGY.

Signed-off-by: Pierre Morel <pmorel@linux.ibm.com>
---
 Documentation/virt/kvm/api.rst   | 31 +++++++++++
 arch/s390/include/uapi/asm/kvm.h | 10 ++++
 arch/s390/kvm/kvm-s390.c         | 96 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
 include/uapi/linux/kvm.h         |  1 +
 4 files changed, 138 insertions(+)

diff --git a/Documentation/virt/kvm/api.rst b/Documentation/virt/kvm/api.rst
index 11e00a46c610..326f8b7e7671 100644
--- a/Documentation/virt/kvm/api.rst
+++ b/Documentation/virt/kvm/api.rst
@@ -7956,6 +7956,37 @@ should adjust CPUID leaf 0xA to reflect that the PMU is disabled.
 When enabled, KVM will exit to userspace with KVM_EXIT_SYSTEM_EVENT of
 type KVM_SYSTEM_EVENT_SUSPEND to process the guest suspend request.
 
+8.37 KVM_CAP_S390_CPU_TOPOLOGY
+------------------------------
+
+:Capability: KVM_CAP_S390_CPU_TOPOLOGY
+:Architectures: s390
+:Type: vm
+
+This capability indicates that KVM will provide the S390 CPU Topology
+facility which consist of the interpretation of the PTF instruction for
+the Function Code 2 along with interception and forwarding of both the
+PTF instruction with Function Codes 0 or 1 and the STSI(15,1,x)
+instruction to the userland hypervisor.
+
+The stfle facility 11, CPU Topology facility, should not be provided
+to the guest without this capability.
+
+When this capability is present, KVM provides a new attribute group
+on vm fd, KVM_S390_VM_CPU_TOPOLOGY.
+This new attribute allows to get, set or clear the Modified Change
+Topology Report (MTCR) bit of the SCA through the kvm_device_attr
+structure.
+
+Getting the MTCR bit is realized by using a kvm_device_attr attr
+entry value of KVM_GET_DEVICE_ATTR and with kvm_device_attr addr
+entry pointing to the address of a struct kvm_cpu_topology.
+The value of the MTCR is return by the bit mtcr of the structure.
+
+When using KVM_SET_DEVICE_ATTR the MTCR is set by using the
+attr->attr value KVM_S390_VM_CPU_TOPO_MTCR_SET and cleared by
+using KVM_S390_VM_CPU_TOPO_MTCR_CLEAR.
+
 9. Known KVM API problems
 =========================
 
diff --git a/arch/s390/include/uapi/asm/kvm.h b/arch/s390/include/uapi/asm/kvm.h
index 7a6b14874d65..df5e8279ffd0 100644
--- a/arch/s390/include/uapi/asm/kvm.h
+++ b/arch/s390/include/uapi/asm/kvm.h
@@ -74,6 +74,7 @@ struct kvm_s390_io_adapter_req {
 #define KVM_S390_VM_CRYPTO		2
 #define KVM_S390_VM_CPU_MODEL		3
 #define KVM_S390_VM_MIGRATION		4
+#define KVM_S390_VM_CPU_TOPOLOGY	5
 
 /* kvm attributes for mem_ctrl */
 #define KVM_S390_VM_MEM_ENABLE_CMMA	0
@@ -171,6 +172,15 @@ struct kvm_s390_vm_cpu_subfunc {
 #define KVM_S390_VM_MIGRATION_START	1
 #define KVM_S390_VM_MIGRATION_STATUS	2
 
+/* kvm attributes for cpu topology */
+#define KVM_S390_VM_CPU_TOPO_MTCR_CLEAR	0
+#define KVM_S390_VM_CPU_TOPO_MTCR_SET	1
+
+struct kvm_cpu_topology {
+	__u16 mtcr : 1;
+	__u16 reserved : 15;
+};
+
 /* for KVM_GET_REGS and KVM_SET_REGS */
 struct kvm_regs {
 	/* general purpose regs for s390 */
diff --git a/arch/s390/kvm/kvm-s390.c b/arch/s390/kvm/kvm-s390.c
index 95b96019ca8e..ae39041bb149 100644
--- a/arch/s390/kvm/kvm-s390.c
+++ b/arch/s390/kvm/kvm-s390.c
@@ -606,6 +606,9 @@ int kvm_vm_ioctl_check_extension(struct kvm *kvm, long ext)
 	case KVM_CAP_S390_PROTECTED:
 		r = is_prot_virt_host();
 		break;
+	case KVM_CAP_S390_CPU_TOPOLOGY:
+		r = test_facility(11);
+		break;
 	default:
 		r = 0;
 	}
@@ -817,6 +820,20 @@ int kvm_vm_ioctl_enable_cap(struct kvm *kvm, struct kvm_enable_cap *cap)
 		icpt_operexc_on_all_vcpus(kvm);
 		r = 0;
 		break;
+	case KVM_CAP_S390_CPU_TOPOLOGY:
+		r = -EINVAL;
+		mutex_lock(&kvm->lock);
+		if (kvm->created_vcpus) {
+			r = -EBUSY;
+		} else if (test_facility(11)) {
+			set_kvm_facility(kvm->arch.model.fac_mask, 11);
+			set_kvm_facility(kvm->arch.model.fac_list, 11);
+			r = 0;
+		}
+		mutex_unlock(&kvm->lock);
+		VM_EVENT(kvm, 3, "ENABLE: CPU TOPOLOGY %s",
+			 r ? "(not available)" : "(success)");
+		break;
 	default:
 		r = -EINVAL;
 		break;
@@ -1710,6 +1727,76 @@ static void kvm_s390_sca_set_mtcr(struct kvm *kvm)
 	ipte_unlock(kvm);
 }
 
+/**
+ * kvm_s390_sca_clear_mtcr
+ * @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_clear_mtcr(struct kvm *kvm)
+{
+	struct bsca_block *sca = kvm->arch.sca; /* SCA version doesn't matter */
+
+	ipte_lock(kvm);
+	sca->utility &= ~SCA_UTILITY_MTCR;
+	ipte_unlock(kvm);
+}
+
+static int kvm_s390_set_topology(struct kvm *kvm, struct kvm_device_attr *attr)
+{
+	if (!test_kvm_facility(kvm, 11))
+		return -ENXIO;
+
+	switch (attr->attr) {
+	case KVM_S390_VM_CPU_TOPO_MTCR_SET:
+		kvm_s390_sca_set_mtcr(kvm);
+		break;
+	case KVM_S390_VM_CPU_TOPO_MTCR_CLEAR:
+		kvm_s390_sca_clear_mtcr(kvm);
+		break;
+	}
+	return 0;
+}
+
+/**
+ * kvm_s390_sca_get_mtcr
+ * @kvm: guest KVM description
+ *
+ * Is only relevant if the topology facility is present,
+ * the caller should check KVM facility 11
+ *
+ * reports to QEMU the Multiprocessor Topology-Change-Report.
+ */
+static int kvm_s390_sca_get_mtcr(struct kvm *kvm)
+{
+	struct bsca_block *sca = kvm->arch.sca; /* SCA version doesn't matter */
+	int val;
+
+	ipte_lock(kvm);
+	val = sca->utility & SCA_UTILITY_MTCR;
+	ipte_unlock(kvm);
+
+	return val;
+}
+
+static int kvm_s390_get_topology(struct kvm *kvm, struct kvm_device_attr *attr)
+{
+	struct kvm_cpu_topology topo = {};
+
+	if (!test_kvm_facility(kvm, 11))
+		return -ENXIO;
+
+	topo.mtcr = kvm_s390_sca_get_mtcr(kvm) ? 1 : 0;
+	if (copy_to_user((void __user *)attr->addr, &topo, sizeof(topo)))
+		return -EFAULT;
+
+	return 0;
+}
+
 static int kvm_s390_vm_set_attr(struct kvm *kvm, struct kvm_device_attr *attr)
 {
 	int ret;
@@ -1730,6 +1817,9 @@ static int kvm_s390_vm_set_attr(struct kvm *kvm, struct kvm_device_attr *attr)
 	case KVM_S390_VM_MIGRATION:
 		ret = kvm_s390_vm_set_migration(kvm, attr);
 		break;
+	case KVM_S390_VM_CPU_TOPOLOGY:
+		ret = kvm_s390_set_topology(kvm, attr);
+		break;
 	default:
 		ret = -ENXIO;
 		break;
@@ -1755,6 +1845,9 @@ static int kvm_s390_vm_get_attr(struct kvm *kvm, struct kvm_device_attr *attr)
 	case KVM_S390_VM_MIGRATION:
 		ret = kvm_s390_vm_get_migration(kvm, attr);
 		break;
+	case KVM_S390_VM_CPU_TOPOLOGY:
+		ret = kvm_s390_get_topology(kvm, attr);
+		break;
 	default:
 		ret = -ENXIO;
 		break;
@@ -1828,6 +1921,9 @@ static int kvm_s390_vm_has_attr(struct kvm *kvm, struct kvm_device_attr *attr)
 	case KVM_S390_VM_MIGRATION:
 		ret = 0;
 		break;
+	case KVM_S390_VM_CPU_TOPOLOGY:
+		ret = test_kvm_facility(kvm, 11) ? 0 : -ENXIO;
+		break;
 	default:
 		ret = -ENXIO;
 		break;
diff --git a/include/uapi/linux/kvm.h b/include/uapi/linux/kvm.h
index 5088bd9f1922..33317d820032 100644
--- a/include/uapi/linux/kvm.h
+++ b/include/uapi/linux/kvm.h
@@ -1157,6 +1157,7 @@ struct kvm_ppc_resize_hpt {
 #define KVM_CAP_VM_TSC_CONTROL 214
 #define KVM_CAP_SYSTEM_EVENT_DATA 215
 #define KVM_CAP_ARM_SYSTEM_SUSPEND 216
+#define KVM_CAP_S390_CPU_TOPOLOGY 217
 
 #ifdef KVM_CAP_IRQ_ROUTING
 
-- 
2.31.1


^ permalink raw reply related	[flat|nested] 29+ messages in thread

* Re: [PATCH v10 1/3] KVM: s390: ipte lock for SCA access should be contained in KVM
  2022-06-20 12:54 ` [PATCH v10 1/3] KVM: s390: ipte lock for SCA access should be contained in KVM Pierre Morel
@ 2022-06-24  5:47   ` Janosch Frank
  2022-06-27 13:29     ` Pierre Morel
  2022-06-24  6:57   ` Nico Boehr
  2022-06-24  9:22   ` Claudio Imbrenda
  2 siblings, 1 reply; 29+ messages in thread
From: Janosch Frank @ 2022-06-24  5:47 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Pierre Morel, kvm
  Cc: linux-s390, linux-kernel, borntraeger, cohuck, david, thuth,
	imbrenda, hca, gor, wintera, seiden, nrb

On 6/20/22 14:54, Pierre Morel wrote:
> We can check if SIIF is enabled by testing the sclp_info struct
> instead of testing the sie control block eca variable.
> sclp.has_ssif is the only requirement to set ECA_SII anyway
> so we can go straight to the source for that.


The subject and commit description don't fit together.
You're doing two things in this patch and only describe one of them.

I'd suggest something like this:

KVM: s390: Cleanup ipte lock access and SIIF facility checks

We can check if SIIF is enabled by testing the sclp_info struct instead 
of testing the sie control block eca variable as that facility is always 
enabled if available.

Also let's cleanup all the ipte related struct member accesses which 
currently happen by referencing the KVM struct via the VCPU struct. 
Making the KVM struct the parameter to the ipte_* functions removes one 
level of indirection which makes the code more readable.


Other than that I'm happy with this patch.

> 
> Signed-off-by: Pierre Morel <pmorel@linux.ibm.com>
> Reviewed-by: Janosch Frank <frankja@linux.ibm.com>
> Reviewed-by: David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>
> ---
>   arch/s390/kvm/gaccess.c | 96 ++++++++++++++++++++---------------------
>   arch/s390/kvm/gaccess.h |  6 +--
>   arch/s390/kvm/priv.c    |  6 +--
>   3 files changed, 54 insertions(+), 54 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/arch/s390/kvm/gaccess.c b/arch/s390/kvm/gaccess.c
> index 227ed0009354..082ec5f2c3a5 100644
> --- a/arch/s390/kvm/gaccess.c
> +++ b/arch/s390/kvm/gaccess.c
> @@ -262,77 +262,77 @@ struct aste {
>   	/* .. more fields there */
>   };
>   
> -int ipte_lock_held(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
> +int ipte_lock_held(struct kvm *kvm)
>   {
> -	if (vcpu->arch.sie_block->eca & ECA_SII) {
> +	if (sclp.has_siif) {
>   		int rc;
>   
> -		read_lock(&vcpu->kvm->arch.sca_lock);
> -		rc = kvm_s390_get_ipte_control(vcpu->kvm)->kh != 0;
> -		read_unlock(&vcpu->kvm->arch.sca_lock);
> +		read_lock(&kvm->arch.sca_lock);
> +		rc = kvm_s390_get_ipte_control(kvm)->kh != 0;
> +		read_unlock(&kvm->arch.sca_lock);
>   		return rc;
>   	}
> -	return vcpu->kvm->arch.ipte_lock_count != 0;
> +	return kvm->arch.ipte_lock_count != 0;
>   }
>   
> -static void ipte_lock_simple(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
> +static void ipte_lock_simple(struct kvm *kvm)
>   {
>   	union ipte_control old, new, *ic;
>   
> -	mutex_lock(&vcpu->kvm->arch.ipte_mutex);
> -	vcpu->kvm->arch.ipte_lock_count++;
> -	if (vcpu->kvm->arch.ipte_lock_count > 1)
> +	mutex_lock(&kvm->arch.ipte_mutex);
> +	kvm->arch.ipte_lock_count++;
> +	if (kvm->arch.ipte_lock_count > 1)
>   		goto out;
>   retry:
> -	read_lock(&vcpu->kvm->arch.sca_lock);
> -	ic = kvm_s390_get_ipte_control(vcpu->kvm);
> +	read_lock(&kvm->arch.sca_lock);
> +	ic = kvm_s390_get_ipte_control(kvm);
>   	do {
>   		old = READ_ONCE(*ic);
>   		if (old.k) {
> -			read_unlock(&vcpu->kvm->arch.sca_lock);
> +			read_unlock(&kvm->arch.sca_lock);
>   			cond_resched();
>   			goto retry;
>   		}
>   		new = old;
>   		new.k = 1;
>   	} while (cmpxchg(&ic->val, old.val, new.val) != old.val);
> -	read_unlock(&vcpu->kvm->arch.sca_lock);
> +	read_unlock(&kvm->arch.sca_lock);
>   out:
> -	mutex_unlock(&vcpu->kvm->arch.ipte_mutex);
> +	mutex_unlock(&kvm->arch.ipte_mutex);
>   }
>   
> -static void ipte_unlock_simple(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
> +static void ipte_unlock_simple(struct kvm *kvm)
>   {
>   	union ipte_control old, new, *ic;
>   
> -	mutex_lock(&vcpu->kvm->arch.ipte_mutex);
> -	vcpu->kvm->arch.ipte_lock_count--;
> -	if (vcpu->kvm->arch.ipte_lock_count)
> +	mutex_lock(&kvm->arch.ipte_mutex);
> +	kvm->arch.ipte_lock_count--;
> +	if (kvm->arch.ipte_lock_count)
>   		goto out;
> -	read_lock(&vcpu->kvm->arch.sca_lock);
> -	ic = kvm_s390_get_ipte_control(vcpu->kvm);
> +	read_lock(&kvm->arch.sca_lock);
> +	ic = kvm_s390_get_ipte_control(kvm);
>   	do {
>   		old = READ_ONCE(*ic);
>   		new = old;
>   		new.k = 0;
>   	} while (cmpxchg(&ic->val, old.val, new.val) != old.val);
> -	read_unlock(&vcpu->kvm->arch.sca_lock);
> -	wake_up(&vcpu->kvm->arch.ipte_wq);
> +	read_unlock(&kvm->arch.sca_lock);
> +	wake_up(&kvm->arch.ipte_wq);
>   out:
> -	mutex_unlock(&vcpu->kvm->arch.ipte_mutex);
> +	mutex_unlock(&kvm->arch.ipte_mutex);
>   }
>   
> -static void ipte_lock_siif(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
> +static void ipte_lock_siif(struct kvm *kvm)
>   {
>   	union ipte_control old, new, *ic;
>   
>   retry:
> -	read_lock(&vcpu->kvm->arch.sca_lock);
> -	ic = kvm_s390_get_ipte_control(vcpu->kvm);
> +	read_lock(&kvm->arch.sca_lock);
> +	ic = kvm_s390_get_ipte_control(kvm);
>   	do {
>   		old = READ_ONCE(*ic);
>   		if (old.kg) {
> -			read_unlock(&vcpu->kvm->arch.sca_lock);
> +			read_unlock(&kvm->arch.sca_lock);
>   			cond_resched();
>   			goto retry;
>   		}
> @@ -340,15 +340,15 @@ static void ipte_lock_siif(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
>   		new.k = 1;
>   		new.kh++;
>   	} while (cmpxchg(&ic->val, old.val, new.val) != old.val);
> -	read_unlock(&vcpu->kvm->arch.sca_lock);
> +	read_unlock(&kvm->arch.sca_lock);
>   }
>   
> -static void ipte_unlock_siif(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
> +static void ipte_unlock_siif(struct kvm *kvm)
>   {
>   	union ipte_control old, new, *ic;
>   
> -	read_lock(&vcpu->kvm->arch.sca_lock);
> -	ic = kvm_s390_get_ipte_control(vcpu->kvm);
> +	read_lock(&kvm->arch.sca_lock);
> +	ic = kvm_s390_get_ipte_control(kvm);
>   	do {
>   		old = READ_ONCE(*ic);
>   		new = old;
> @@ -356,25 +356,25 @@ static void ipte_unlock_siif(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
>   		if (!new.kh)
>   			new.k = 0;
>   	} while (cmpxchg(&ic->val, old.val, new.val) != old.val);
> -	read_unlock(&vcpu->kvm->arch.sca_lock);
> +	read_unlock(&kvm->arch.sca_lock);
>   	if (!new.kh)
> -		wake_up(&vcpu->kvm->arch.ipte_wq);
> +		wake_up(&kvm->arch.ipte_wq);
>   }
>   
> -void ipte_lock(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
> +void ipte_lock(struct kvm *kvm)
>   {
> -	if (vcpu->arch.sie_block->eca & ECA_SII)
> -		ipte_lock_siif(vcpu);
> +	if (sclp.has_siif)
> +		ipte_lock_siif(kvm);
>   	else
> -		ipte_lock_simple(vcpu);
> +		ipte_lock_simple(kvm);
>   }
>   
> -void ipte_unlock(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
> +void ipte_unlock(struct kvm *kvm)
>   {
> -	if (vcpu->arch.sie_block->eca & ECA_SII)
> -		ipte_unlock_siif(vcpu);
> +	if (sclp.has_siif)
> +		ipte_unlock_siif(kvm);
>   	else
> -		ipte_unlock_simple(vcpu);
> +		ipte_unlock_simple(kvm);
>   }
>   
>   static int ar_translation(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, union asce *asce, u8 ar,
> @@ -1086,7 +1086,7 @@ int access_guest_with_key(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, unsigned long ga, u8 ar,
>   	try_storage_prot_override = storage_prot_override_applicable(vcpu);
>   	need_ipte_lock = psw_bits(*psw).dat && !asce.r;
>   	if (need_ipte_lock)
> -		ipte_lock(vcpu);
> +		ipte_lock(vcpu->kvm);
>   	/*
>   	 * Since we do the access further down ultimately via a move instruction
>   	 * that does key checking and returns an error in case of a protection
> @@ -1127,7 +1127,7 @@ int access_guest_with_key(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, unsigned long ga, u8 ar,
>   	}
>   out_unlock:
>   	if (need_ipte_lock)
> -		ipte_unlock(vcpu);
> +		ipte_unlock(vcpu->kvm);
>   	if (nr_pages > ARRAY_SIZE(gpa_array))
>   		vfree(gpas);
>   	return rc;
> @@ -1199,10 +1199,10 @@ int check_gva_range(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, unsigned long gva, u8 ar,
>   	rc = get_vcpu_asce(vcpu, &asce, gva, ar, mode);
>   	if (rc)
>   		return rc;
> -	ipte_lock(vcpu);
> +	ipte_lock(vcpu->kvm);
>   	rc = guest_range_to_gpas(vcpu, gva, ar, NULL, length, asce, mode,
>   				 access_key);
> -	ipte_unlock(vcpu);
> +	ipte_unlock(vcpu->kvm);
>   
>   	return rc;
>   }
> @@ -1465,7 +1465,7 @@ int kvm_s390_shadow_fault(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, struct gmap *sg,
>   	 * tables/pointers we read stay valid - unshadowing is however
>   	 * always possible - only guest_table_lock protects us.
>   	 */
> -	ipte_lock(vcpu);
> +	ipte_lock(vcpu->kvm);
>   
>   	rc = gmap_shadow_pgt_lookup(sg, saddr, &pgt, &dat_protection, &fake);
>   	if (rc)
> @@ -1499,7 +1499,7 @@ int kvm_s390_shadow_fault(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, struct gmap *sg,
>   	pte.p |= dat_protection;
>   	if (!rc)
>   		rc = gmap_shadow_page(sg, saddr, __pte(pte.val));
> -	ipte_unlock(vcpu);
> +	ipte_unlock(vcpu->kvm);
>   	mmap_read_unlock(sg->mm);
>   	return rc;
>   }
> diff --git a/arch/s390/kvm/gaccess.h b/arch/s390/kvm/gaccess.h
> index 1124ff282012..9408d6cc8e2c 100644
> --- a/arch/s390/kvm/gaccess.h
> +++ b/arch/s390/kvm/gaccess.h
> @@ -440,9 +440,9 @@ int read_guest_real(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, unsigned long gra, void *data,
>   	return access_guest_real(vcpu, gra, data, len, 0);
>   }
>   
> -void ipte_lock(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu);
> -void ipte_unlock(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu);
> -int ipte_lock_held(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu);
> +void ipte_lock(struct kvm *kvm);
> +void ipte_unlock(struct kvm *kvm);
> +int ipte_lock_held(struct kvm *kvm);
>   int kvm_s390_check_low_addr_prot_real(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, unsigned long gra);
>   
>   /* MVPG PEI indication bits */
> diff --git a/arch/s390/kvm/priv.c b/arch/s390/kvm/priv.c
> index 83bb5cf97282..12c464c7cddf 100644
> --- a/arch/s390/kvm/priv.c
> +++ b/arch/s390/kvm/priv.c
> @@ -442,7 +442,7 @@ static int handle_ipte_interlock(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
>   	vcpu->stat.instruction_ipte_interlock++;
>   	if (psw_bits(vcpu->arch.sie_block->gpsw).pstate)
>   		return kvm_s390_inject_program_int(vcpu, PGM_PRIVILEGED_OP);
> -	wait_event(vcpu->kvm->arch.ipte_wq, !ipte_lock_held(vcpu));
> +	wait_event(vcpu->kvm->arch.ipte_wq, !ipte_lock_held(vcpu->kvm));
>   	kvm_s390_retry_instr(vcpu);
>   	VCPU_EVENT(vcpu, 4, "%s", "retrying ipte interlock operation");
>   	return 0;
> @@ -1471,7 +1471,7 @@ static int handle_tprot(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
>   	access_key = (operand2 & 0xf0) >> 4;
>   
>   	if (vcpu->arch.sie_block->gpsw.mask & PSW_MASK_DAT)
> -		ipte_lock(vcpu);
> +		ipte_lock(vcpu->kvm);
>   
>   	ret = guest_translate_address_with_key(vcpu, address, ar, &gpa,
>   					       GACC_STORE, access_key);
> @@ -1508,7 +1508,7 @@ static int handle_tprot(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
>   	}
>   
>   	if (vcpu->arch.sie_block->gpsw.mask & PSW_MASK_DAT)
> -		ipte_unlock(vcpu);
> +		ipte_unlock(vcpu->kvm);
>   	return ret;
>   }
>   


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 29+ messages in thread

* Re: [PATCH v10 2/3] KVM: s390: guest support for topology function
  2022-06-20 12:54 ` [PATCH v10 2/3] KVM: s390: guest support for topology function Pierre Morel
@ 2022-06-24  6:22   ` Janosch Frank
  2022-06-27 13:30     ` Pierre Morel
  2022-06-24  6:56   ` Nico Boehr
                     ` (3 subsequent siblings)
  4 siblings, 1 reply; 29+ messages in thread
From: Janosch Frank @ 2022-06-24  6:22 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Pierre Morel, kvm
  Cc: linux-s390, linux-kernel, borntraeger, cohuck, david, thuth,
	imbrenda, hca, gor, wintera, seiden, nrb

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/include/asm/kvm_host.h b/arch/s390/include/asm/kvm_host.h
> index 766028d54a3e..bb54196d4ed6 100644
> --- a/arch/s390/include/asm/kvm_host.h
> +++ b/arch/s390/include/asm/kvm_host.h
> @@ -97,15 +97,19 @@ struct bsca_block {
>   	union ipte_control ipte_control;
>   	__u64	reserved[5];
>   	__u64	mcn;
> -	__u64	reserved2;
> +#define SCA_UTILITY_MTCR	0x8000

I'm not too happy having this in the bsca but not in the esca. I'd 
suggest putting it outside the structs or to go with my next suggestion:

Just make it a bit field struct and make that a member in bsca/esca.
No messing about with ANDing, ORing etc.

It's unfortunate that we only use one bit in that field but I'd still 
find it easier to read.

> +	__u16	utility;
> +	__u8	reserved2[6];
>   	struct bsca_entry cpu[KVM_S390_BSCA_CPU_SLOTS];
>   };
>   
>   struct esca_block {
>   	union ipte_control ipte_control;
> -	__u64   reserved1[7];
> +	__u64   reserved1[6];
> +	__u16	utility;
> +	__u8	reserved2[6];
>   	__u64   mcn[4];
> -	__u64   reserved2[20];
> +	__u64   reserved3[20];
>   	struct esca_entry cpu[KVM_S390_ESCA_CPU_SLOTS];
>   };
>   
> @@ -249,6 +253,7 @@ struct kvm_s390_sie_block {
>   #define ECB_SPECI	0x08
>   #define ECB_SRSI	0x04
>   #define ECB_HOSTPROTINT	0x02
> +#define ECB_PTF		0x01
>   	__u8	ecb;			/* 0x0061 */
>   #define ECB2_CMMA	0x80
>   #define ECB2_IEP	0x20
> 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
> + * @kvm: guest KVM description
> + *
> + * Is only relevant if the topology facility is present,
> + * the caller should check KVM facility 11

I'm not sure that this statement make sense since you set the mctr in 
kvm_s390_vcpu_setup() unconditionally and don't check stfle 11.

I think we can remove the second line from this.

> + *
> + * Updates the Multiprocessor Topology-Change-Report to signal
> + * the guest with a topology change.

Please swap those two comments

> + */
> +static void kvm_s390_sca_set_mtcr(struct kvm *kvm)
> +{
> +	struct bsca_block *sca = kvm->arch.sca; /* SCA version doesn't matter */

Please put the comment above the statement and maybe extend it a bit:
SCA version doesn't matter, the utility field always has the same offset.

> +
> +	ipte_lock(kvm);
> +	sca->utility |= SCA_UTILITY_MTCR;
> +	ipte_unlock(kvm);
> +}
> +
>   static int kvm_s390_vm_set_attr(struct kvm *kvm, struct kvm_device_attr *attr)
>   {
>   	int ret;
> @@ -3143,7 +3162,6 @@ __u64 kvm_s390_get_cpu_timer(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
>   
>   void kvm_arch_vcpu_load(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, int cpu)
>   {
> -

Please remove that change

>   	gmap_enable(vcpu->arch.enabled_gmap);
>   	kvm_s390_set_cpuflags(vcpu, CPUSTAT_RUNNING);
>   	if (vcpu->arch.cputm_enabled && !is_vcpu_idle(vcpu))
> @@ -3272,6 +3290,11 @@ static int kvm_s390_vcpu_setup(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
>   		vcpu->arch.sie_block->ecb |= ECB_HOSTPROTINT;
>   	if (test_kvm_facility(vcpu->kvm, 9))
>   		vcpu->arch.sie_block->ecb |= ECB_SRSI;
> +
> +	/* PTF needs guest facilities to enable interpretation */
> +	if (test_kvm_facility(vcpu->kvm, 11))
> +		vcpu->arch.sie_block->ecb |= ECB_PTF;
> +
>   	if (test_kvm_facility(vcpu->kvm, 73))
>   		vcpu->arch.sie_block->ecb |= ECB_TE;
>   	if (!kvm_is_ucontrol(vcpu->kvm))
> @@ -3403,6 +3426,8 @@ int kvm_arch_vcpu_create(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
>   	rc = kvm_s390_vcpu_setup(vcpu);
>   	if (rc)
>   		goto out_ucontrol_uninit;
> +
> +	kvm_s390_sca_set_mtcr(vcpu->kvm);
>   	return 0;
>   
>   out_ucontrol_uninit:
> diff --git a/arch/s390/kvm/priv.c b/arch/s390/kvm/priv.c
> index 12c464c7cddf..77a692238585 100644
> --- a/arch/s390/kvm/priv.c
> +++ b/arch/s390/kvm/priv.c
> @@ -873,10 +873,13 @@ static int handle_stsi(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
>   	if (vcpu->arch.sie_block->gpsw.mask & PSW_MASK_PSTATE)
>   		return kvm_s390_inject_program_int(vcpu, PGM_PRIVILEGED_OP);
>   
> -	if (fc > 3) {
> -		kvm_s390_set_psw_cc(vcpu, 3);
> -		return 0;
> -	}
> +	/* Bailout forbidden function codes */
> +	if (fc > 3 && fc != 15)
> +		goto out_no_data;
> +
> +	/* fc 15 is provided with PTF/CPU topology support */
> +	if (fc == 15 && !test_kvm_facility(vcpu->kvm, 11))
> +		goto out_no_data;
>   
>   	if (vcpu->run->s.regs.gprs[0] & 0x0fffff00
>   	    || vcpu->run->s.regs.gprs[1] & 0xffff0000)
> @@ -910,6 +913,10 @@ static int handle_stsi(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
>   			goto out_no_data;
>   		handle_stsi_3_2_2(vcpu, (void *) mem);
>   		break;
> +	case 15:
> +		trace_kvm_s390_handle_stsi(vcpu, fc, sel1, sel2, operand2);
> +		insert_stsi_usr_data(vcpu, operand2, ar, fc, sel1, sel2);
> +		return -EREMOTE;
>   	}
>   	if (kvm_s390_pv_cpu_is_protected(vcpu)) {
>   		memcpy((void *)sida_origin(vcpu->arch.sie_block), (void *)mem,
> diff --git a/arch/s390/kvm/vsie.c b/arch/s390/kvm/vsie.c
> index dada78b92691..4f4fee697550 100644
> --- a/arch/s390/kvm/vsie.c
> +++ b/arch/s390/kvm/vsie.c
> @@ -503,6 +503,9 @@ static int shadow_scb(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, struct vsie_page *vsie_page)
>   	/* Host-protection-interruption introduced with ESOP */
>   	if (test_kvm_cpu_feat(vcpu->kvm, KVM_S390_VM_CPU_FEAT_ESOP))
>   		scb_s->ecb |= scb_o->ecb & ECB_HOSTPROTINT;
> +	/* CPU Topology */

Maybe also add:
This facility only uses the utility field of the SCA and none of the cpu 
entries that are problematic with the other interpretation facilities so 
we can pass it through.

> +	if (test_kvm_facility(vcpu->kvm, 11))
> +		scb_s->ecb |= scb_o->ecb & ECB_PTF;
>   	/* transactional execution */
>   	if (test_kvm_facility(vcpu->kvm, 73) && wants_tx) {
>   		/* remap the prefix is tx is toggled on */


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 29+ messages in thread

* Re: [PATCH v10 3/3] KVM: s390: resetting the Topology-Change-Report
  2022-06-20 12:54 ` [PATCH v10 3/3] KVM: s390: resetting the Topology-Change-Report Pierre Morel
@ 2022-06-24  6:50   ` Janosch Frank
  2022-06-27 13:34     ` Pierre Morel
  2022-06-28 16:41   ` Janis Schoetterl-Glausch
  1 sibling, 1 reply; 29+ messages in thread
From: Janosch Frank @ 2022-06-24  6:50 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Pierre Morel, kvm
  Cc: linux-s390, linux-kernel, borntraeger, cohuck, david, thuth,
	imbrenda, hca, gor, wintera, seiden, nrb

On 6/20/22 14:54, Pierre Morel wrote:
> During a subsystem reset the Topology-Change-Report is cleared.
> Let's give userland the possibility to clear the MTCR in the case
> of a subsystem reset.
> 
> To migrate the MTCR, we give userland the possibility to
> query the MTCR state.
> 
> We indicate KVM support for the CPU topology facility with a new
> KVM capability: KVM_CAP_S390_CPU_TOPOLOGY.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Pierre Morel <pmorel@linux.ibm.com>
> ---
>   Documentation/virt/kvm/api.rst   | 31 +++++++++++
>   arch/s390/include/uapi/asm/kvm.h | 10 ++++
>   arch/s390/kvm/kvm-s390.c         | 96 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>   include/uapi/linux/kvm.h         |  1 +
>   4 files changed, 138 insertions(+)
> 
> diff --git a/Documentation/virt/kvm/api.rst b/Documentation/virt/kvm/api.rst
> index 11e00a46c610..326f8b7e7671 100644
> --- a/Documentation/virt/kvm/api.rst
> +++ b/Documentation/virt/kvm/api.rst
> @@ -7956,6 +7956,37 @@ should adjust CPUID leaf 0xA to reflect that the PMU is disabled.
>   When enabled, KVM will exit to userspace with KVM_EXIT_SYSTEM_EVENT of
>   type KVM_SYSTEM_EVENT_SUSPEND to process the guest suspend request.
>   
> +8.37 KVM_CAP_S390_CPU_TOPOLOGY
> +------------------------------
> +
> +:Capability: KVM_CAP_S390_CPU_TOPOLOGY
> +:Architectures: s390
> +:Type: vm
> +
> +This capability indicates that KVM will provide the S390 CPU Topology
> +facility which consist of the interpretation of the PTF instruction for
> +the Function Code 2 along with interception and forwarding of both the

Making function code capital surprises me when reading.

> +PTF instruction with Function Codes 0 or 1 and the STSI(15,1,x)
> +instruction to the userland hypervisor.
> +
> +The stfle facility 11, CPU Topology facility, should not be provided

s/provided/indicated

> +to the guest without this capability.
> +
> +When this capability is present, KVM provides a new attribute group
> +on vm fd, KVM_S390_VM_CPU_TOPOLOGY.
> +This new attribute allows to get, set or clear the Modified Change
> +Topology Report (MTCR) bit of the SCA through the kvm_device_attr
> +structure.
> +
> +Getting the MTCR bit is realized by using a kvm_device_attr attr
> +entry value of KVM_GET_DEVICE_ATTR and with kvm_device_attr addr
> +entry pointing to the address of a struct kvm_cpu_topology.
> +The value of the MTCR is return by the bit mtcr of the structure. > +
> +When using KVM_SET_DEVICE_ATTR the MTCR is set by using the
> +attr->attr value KVM_S390_VM_CPU_TOPO_MTCR_SET and cleared by
> +using KVM_S390_VM_CPU_TOPO_MTCR_CLEAR.

I have the feeling that we can drop the two blocks above and we won't 
loose information.

> +/**
> + * kvm_s390_sca_clear_mtcr
> + * @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_clear_mtcr(struct kvm *kvm)

This is a set operation with the value 0 and that's clearly visible by 
the copied code. If you make the utility entry a bitfield you can easily 
set 0/1 via one function without doing the bit manipulation by hand.

I.e. please only use one set function.

> +{
> +	struct bsca_block *sca = kvm->arch.sca; /* SCA version doesn't matter */
> +
> +	ipte_lock(kvm);
> +	sca->utility &= ~SCA_UTILITY_MTCR;
> +	ipte_unlock(kvm);
> +}
> +
> +static int kvm_s390_set_topology(struct kvm *kvm, struct kvm_device_attr *attr)
> +{
> +	if (!test_kvm_facility(kvm, 11))
> +		return -ENXIO;
> +
> +	switch (attr->attr) {
> +	case KVM_S390_VM_CPU_TOPO_MTCR_SET:
> +		kvm_s390_sca_set_mtcr(kvm);
> +		break;
> +	case KVM_S390_VM_CPU_TOPO_MTCR_CLEAR:
> +		kvm_s390_sca_clear_mtcr(kvm);
> +		break;
> +	}

By having two endpoints here we trade an easy check with having to 
access process memory to grab the value we want to set.

I'm still torn about this.

> +	return 0;
> +}
> +
> +/**
> + * kvm_s390_sca_get_mtcr
> + * @kvm: guest KVM description
> + *
> + * Is only relevant if the topology facility is present,
> + * the caller should check KVM facility 11
> + *
> + * reports to QEMU the Multiprocessor Topology-Change-Report.
> + */
> +static int kvm_s390_sca_get_mtcr(struct kvm *kvm)
> +{
> +	struct bsca_block *sca = kvm->arch.sca; /* SCA version doesn't matter */

Same comments as with the set_mtcr()

> +	int val;
> +
> +	ipte_lock(kvm);
> +	val = sca->utility & SCA_UTILITY_MTCR;
> +	ipte_unlock(kvm);
> +
> +	return val;
> +}
> +
> +static int kvm_s390_get_topology(struct kvm *kvm, struct kvm_device_attr *attr)
> +{
> +	struct kvm_cpu_topology topo = {};
> +
> +	if (!test_kvm_facility(kvm, 11))
> +		return -ENXIO;
> +
> +	topo.mtcr = kvm_s390_sca_get_mtcr(kvm) ? 1 : 0;
> +	if (copy_to_user((void __user *)attr->addr, &topo, sizeof(topo)))
> +		return -EFAULT;
> +
> +	return 0;
> +}
> +
>   static int kvm_s390_vm_set_attr(struct kvm *kvm, struct kvm_device_attr *attr)
>   {
>   	int ret;
> @@ -1730,6 +1817,9 @@ static int kvm_s390_vm_set_attr(struct kvm *kvm, struct kvm_device_attr *attr)
>   	case KVM_S390_VM_MIGRATION:
>   		ret = kvm_s390_vm_set_migration(kvm, attr);
>   		break;
> +	case KVM_S390_VM_CPU_TOPOLOGY:
> +		ret = kvm_s390_set_topology(kvm, attr);
> +		break;
>   	default:
>   		ret = -ENXIO;
>   		break;
> @@ -1755,6 +1845,9 @@ static int kvm_s390_vm_get_attr(struct kvm *kvm, struct kvm_device_attr *attr)
>   	case KVM_S390_VM_MIGRATION:
>   		ret = kvm_s390_vm_get_migration(kvm, attr);
>   		break;
> +	case KVM_S390_VM_CPU_TOPOLOGY:
> +		ret = kvm_s390_get_topology(kvm, attr);
> +		break;
>   	default:
>   		ret = -ENXIO;
>   		break;
> @@ -1828,6 +1921,9 @@ static int kvm_s390_vm_has_attr(struct kvm *kvm, struct kvm_device_attr *attr)
>   	case KVM_S390_VM_MIGRATION:
>   		ret = 0;
>   		break;
> +	case KVM_S390_VM_CPU_TOPOLOGY:
> +		ret = test_kvm_facility(kvm, 11) ? 0 : -ENXIO;
> +		break;
>   	default:
>   		ret = -ENXIO;
>   		break;
> diff --git a/include/uapi/linux/kvm.h b/include/uapi/linux/kvm.h
> index 5088bd9f1922..33317d820032 100644
> --- a/include/uapi/linux/kvm.h
> +++ b/include/uapi/linux/kvm.h
> @@ -1157,6 +1157,7 @@ struct kvm_ppc_resize_hpt {
>   #define KVM_CAP_VM_TSC_CONTROL 214
>   #define KVM_CAP_SYSTEM_EVENT_DATA 215
>   #define KVM_CAP_ARM_SYSTEM_SUSPEND 216
> +#define KVM_CAP_S390_CPU_TOPOLOGY 217
>   
>   #ifdef KVM_CAP_IRQ_ROUTING
>   


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 29+ messages in thread

* Re: [PATCH v10 2/3] KVM: s390: guest support for topology function
  2022-06-20 12:54 ` [PATCH v10 2/3] KVM: s390: guest support for topology function Pierre Morel
  2022-06-24  6:22   ` Janosch Frank
@ 2022-06-24  6:56   ` Nico Boehr
  2022-06-27 13:16     ` Pierre Morel
  2022-06-28 14:38     ` Pierre Morel
  2022-06-24  9:32   ` Claudio Imbrenda
                     ` (2 subsequent siblings)
  4 siblings, 2 replies; 29+ messages in thread
From: Nico Boehr @ 2022-06-24  6:56 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Pierre Morel, kvm
  Cc: linux-s390, linux-kernel, borntraeger, frankja, cohuck, david,
	thuth, imbrenda, hca, gor, pmorel, wintera, seiden

Quoting Pierre Morel (2022-06-20 14:54:36)
[...]
> diff --git a/arch/s390/include/asm/kvm_host.h b/arch/s390/include/asm/kvm_host.h
> index 766028d54a3e..bb54196d4ed6 100644
> --- a/arch/s390/include/asm/kvm_host.h
> +++ b/arch/s390/include/asm/kvm_host.h
[...]
> @@ -3403,6 +3426,8 @@ int kvm_arch_vcpu_create(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
>         rc = kvm_s390_vcpu_setup(vcpu);
>         if (rc)
>                 goto out_ucontrol_uninit;
> +
> +       kvm_s390_sca_set_mtcr(vcpu->kvm);

We set the MTCR in the vcpu create. Does it also make sense to set it in kvm_arch_vcpu_destroy?

[...]
> diff --git a/arch/s390/kvm/priv.c b/arch/s390/kvm/priv.c
> index 12c464c7cddf..77a692238585 100644
> --- a/arch/s390/kvm/priv.c
> +++ b/arch/s390/kvm/priv.c
> @@ -873,10 +873,13 @@ static int handle_stsi(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
[...]
> +       case 15:
> +               trace_kvm_s390_handle_stsi(vcpu, fc, sel1, sel2, operand2);
> +               insert_stsi_usr_data(vcpu, operand2, ar, fc, sel1, sel2);
> +               return -EREMOTE;

Maybe the API documentation should clearly note that once you turn on KVM_CAP_S390_CPU_TOPOLOGY, you will get exits to userspace for STSI 15.x.y, regardless of whether KVM_CAP_S390_USER_STSI is on or off.

Other than that, looks good, hence:

Reviewed-by: Nico Boehr <nrb@linux.ibm.com>

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 29+ messages in thread

* Re: [PATCH v10 1/3] KVM: s390: ipte lock for SCA access should be contained in KVM
  2022-06-20 12:54 ` [PATCH v10 1/3] KVM: s390: ipte lock for SCA access should be contained in KVM Pierre Morel
  2022-06-24  5:47   ` Janosch Frank
@ 2022-06-24  6:57   ` Nico Boehr
  2022-06-27 13:28     ` Pierre Morel
  2022-06-24  9:22   ` Claudio Imbrenda
  2 siblings, 1 reply; 29+ messages in thread
From: Nico Boehr @ 2022-06-24  6:57 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Pierre Morel, kvm
  Cc: linux-s390, linux-kernel, borntraeger, frankja, cohuck, david,
	thuth, imbrenda, hca, gor, pmorel, wintera, seiden

Quoting Pierre Morel (2022-06-20 14:54:35)
> We can check if SIIF is enabled by testing the sclp_info struct
> instead of testing the sie control block eca variable.
> sclp.has_ssif is the only requirement to set ECA_SII anyway
> so we can go straight to the source for that.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Pierre Morel <pmorel@linux.ibm.com>
> Reviewed-by: Janosch Frank <frankja@linux.ibm.com>
> Reviewed-by: David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>

Reviewed-by: Nico Boehr <nrb@linux.ibm.com>

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 29+ messages in thread

* Re: [PATCH v10 1/3] KVM: s390: ipte lock for SCA access should be contained in KVM
  2022-06-20 12:54 ` [PATCH v10 1/3] KVM: s390: ipte lock for SCA access should be contained in KVM Pierre Morel
  2022-06-24  5:47   ` Janosch Frank
  2022-06-24  6:57   ` Nico Boehr
@ 2022-06-24  9:22   ` Claudio Imbrenda
  2 siblings, 0 replies; 29+ messages in thread
From: Claudio Imbrenda @ 2022-06-24  9:22 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Pierre Morel
  Cc: kvm, linux-s390, linux-kernel, borntraeger, frankja, cohuck,
	david, thuth, hca, gor, wintera, seiden, nrb

On Mon, 20 Jun 2022 14:54:35 +0200
Pierre Morel <pmorel@linux.ibm.com> wrote:

> We can check if SIIF is enabled by testing the sclp_info struct
> instead of testing the sie control block eca variable.
> sclp.has_ssif is the only requirement to set ECA_SII anyway
> so we can go straight to the source for that.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Pierre Morel <pmorel@linux.ibm.com>
> Reviewed-by: Janosch Frank <frankja@linux.ibm.com>
> Reviewed-by: David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>

Reviewed-by: Claudio Imbrenda <imbrenda@linux.ibm.com>

> ---
>  arch/s390/kvm/gaccess.c | 96 ++++++++++++++++++++---------------------
>  arch/s390/kvm/gaccess.h |  6 +--
>  arch/s390/kvm/priv.c    |  6 +--
>  3 files changed, 54 insertions(+), 54 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/arch/s390/kvm/gaccess.c b/arch/s390/kvm/gaccess.c
> index 227ed0009354..082ec5f2c3a5 100644
> --- a/arch/s390/kvm/gaccess.c
> +++ b/arch/s390/kvm/gaccess.c
> @@ -262,77 +262,77 @@ struct aste {
>  	/* .. more fields there */
>  };
>  
> -int ipte_lock_held(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
> +int ipte_lock_held(struct kvm *kvm)
>  {
> -	if (vcpu->arch.sie_block->eca & ECA_SII) {
> +	if (sclp.has_siif) {
>  		int rc;
>  
> -		read_lock(&vcpu->kvm->arch.sca_lock);
> -		rc = kvm_s390_get_ipte_control(vcpu->kvm)->kh != 0;
> -		read_unlock(&vcpu->kvm->arch.sca_lock);
> +		read_lock(&kvm->arch.sca_lock);
> +		rc = kvm_s390_get_ipte_control(kvm)->kh != 0;
> +		read_unlock(&kvm->arch.sca_lock);
>  		return rc;
>  	}
> -	return vcpu->kvm->arch.ipte_lock_count != 0;
> +	return kvm->arch.ipte_lock_count != 0;
>  }
>  
> -static void ipte_lock_simple(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
> +static void ipte_lock_simple(struct kvm *kvm)
>  {
>  	union ipte_control old, new, *ic;
>  
> -	mutex_lock(&vcpu->kvm->arch.ipte_mutex);
> -	vcpu->kvm->arch.ipte_lock_count++;
> -	if (vcpu->kvm->arch.ipte_lock_count > 1)
> +	mutex_lock(&kvm->arch.ipte_mutex);
> +	kvm->arch.ipte_lock_count++;
> +	if (kvm->arch.ipte_lock_count > 1)
>  		goto out;
>  retry:
> -	read_lock(&vcpu->kvm->arch.sca_lock);
> -	ic = kvm_s390_get_ipte_control(vcpu->kvm);
> +	read_lock(&kvm->arch.sca_lock);
> +	ic = kvm_s390_get_ipte_control(kvm);
>  	do {
>  		old = READ_ONCE(*ic);
>  		if (old.k) {
> -			read_unlock(&vcpu->kvm->arch.sca_lock);
> +			read_unlock(&kvm->arch.sca_lock);
>  			cond_resched();
>  			goto retry;
>  		}
>  		new = old;
>  		new.k = 1;
>  	} while (cmpxchg(&ic->val, old.val, new.val) != old.val);
> -	read_unlock(&vcpu->kvm->arch.sca_lock);
> +	read_unlock(&kvm->arch.sca_lock);
>  out:
> -	mutex_unlock(&vcpu->kvm->arch.ipte_mutex);
> +	mutex_unlock(&kvm->arch.ipte_mutex);
>  }
>  
> -static void ipte_unlock_simple(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
> +static void ipte_unlock_simple(struct kvm *kvm)
>  {
>  	union ipte_control old, new, *ic;
>  
> -	mutex_lock(&vcpu->kvm->arch.ipte_mutex);
> -	vcpu->kvm->arch.ipte_lock_count--;
> -	if (vcpu->kvm->arch.ipte_lock_count)
> +	mutex_lock(&kvm->arch.ipte_mutex);
> +	kvm->arch.ipte_lock_count--;
> +	if (kvm->arch.ipte_lock_count)
>  		goto out;
> -	read_lock(&vcpu->kvm->arch.sca_lock);
> -	ic = kvm_s390_get_ipte_control(vcpu->kvm);
> +	read_lock(&kvm->arch.sca_lock);
> +	ic = kvm_s390_get_ipte_control(kvm);
>  	do {
>  		old = READ_ONCE(*ic);
>  		new = old;
>  		new.k = 0;
>  	} while (cmpxchg(&ic->val, old.val, new.val) != old.val);
> -	read_unlock(&vcpu->kvm->arch.sca_lock);
> -	wake_up(&vcpu->kvm->arch.ipte_wq);
> +	read_unlock(&kvm->arch.sca_lock);
> +	wake_up(&kvm->arch.ipte_wq);
>  out:
> -	mutex_unlock(&vcpu->kvm->arch.ipte_mutex);
> +	mutex_unlock(&kvm->arch.ipte_mutex);
>  }
>  
> -static void ipte_lock_siif(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
> +static void ipte_lock_siif(struct kvm *kvm)
>  {
>  	union ipte_control old, new, *ic;
>  
>  retry:
> -	read_lock(&vcpu->kvm->arch.sca_lock);
> -	ic = kvm_s390_get_ipte_control(vcpu->kvm);
> +	read_lock(&kvm->arch.sca_lock);
> +	ic = kvm_s390_get_ipte_control(kvm);
>  	do {
>  		old = READ_ONCE(*ic);
>  		if (old.kg) {
> -			read_unlock(&vcpu->kvm->arch.sca_lock);
> +			read_unlock(&kvm->arch.sca_lock);
>  			cond_resched();
>  			goto retry;
>  		}
> @@ -340,15 +340,15 @@ static void ipte_lock_siif(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
>  		new.k = 1;
>  		new.kh++;
>  	} while (cmpxchg(&ic->val, old.val, new.val) != old.val);
> -	read_unlock(&vcpu->kvm->arch.sca_lock);
> +	read_unlock(&kvm->arch.sca_lock);
>  }
>  
> -static void ipte_unlock_siif(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
> +static void ipte_unlock_siif(struct kvm *kvm)
>  {
>  	union ipte_control old, new, *ic;
>  
> -	read_lock(&vcpu->kvm->arch.sca_lock);
> -	ic = kvm_s390_get_ipte_control(vcpu->kvm);
> +	read_lock(&kvm->arch.sca_lock);
> +	ic = kvm_s390_get_ipte_control(kvm);
>  	do {
>  		old = READ_ONCE(*ic);
>  		new = old;
> @@ -356,25 +356,25 @@ static void ipte_unlock_siif(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
>  		if (!new.kh)
>  			new.k = 0;
>  	} while (cmpxchg(&ic->val, old.val, new.val) != old.val);
> -	read_unlock(&vcpu->kvm->arch.sca_lock);
> +	read_unlock(&kvm->arch.sca_lock);
>  	if (!new.kh)
> -		wake_up(&vcpu->kvm->arch.ipte_wq);
> +		wake_up(&kvm->arch.ipte_wq);
>  }
>  
> -void ipte_lock(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
> +void ipte_lock(struct kvm *kvm)
>  {
> -	if (vcpu->arch.sie_block->eca & ECA_SII)
> -		ipte_lock_siif(vcpu);
> +	if (sclp.has_siif)
> +		ipte_lock_siif(kvm);
>  	else
> -		ipte_lock_simple(vcpu);
> +		ipte_lock_simple(kvm);
>  }
>  
> -void ipte_unlock(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
> +void ipte_unlock(struct kvm *kvm)
>  {
> -	if (vcpu->arch.sie_block->eca & ECA_SII)
> -		ipte_unlock_siif(vcpu);
> +	if (sclp.has_siif)
> +		ipte_unlock_siif(kvm);
>  	else
> -		ipte_unlock_simple(vcpu);
> +		ipte_unlock_simple(kvm);
>  }
>  
>  static int ar_translation(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, union asce *asce, u8 ar,
> @@ -1086,7 +1086,7 @@ int access_guest_with_key(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, unsigned long ga, u8 ar,
>  	try_storage_prot_override = storage_prot_override_applicable(vcpu);
>  	need_ipte_lock = psw_bits(*psw).dat && !asce.r;
>  	if (need_ipte_lock)
> -		ipte_lock(vcpu);
> +		ipte_lock(vcpu->kvm);
>  	/*
>  	 * Since we do the access further down ultimately via a move instruction
>  	 * that does key checking and returns an error in case of a protection
> @@ -1127,7 +1127,7 @@ int access_guest_with_key(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, unsigned long ga, u8 ar,
>  	}
>  out_unlock:
>  	if (need_ipte_lock)
> -		ipte_unlock(vcpu);
> +		ipte_unlock(vcpu->kvm);
>  	if (nr_pages > ARRAY_SIZE(gpa_array))
>  		vfree(gpas);
>  	return rc;
> @@ -1199,10 +1199,10 @@ int check_gva_range(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, unsigned long gva, u8 ar,
>  	rc = get_vcpu_asce(vcpu, &asce, gva, ar, mode);
>  	if (rc)
>  		return rc;
> -	ipte_lock(vcpu);
> +	ipte_lock(vcpu->kvm);
>  	rc = guest_range_to_gpas(vcpu, gva, ar, NULL, length, asce, mode,
>  				 access_key);
> -	ipte_unlock(vcpu);
> +	ipte_unlock(vcpu->kvm);
>  
>  	return rc;
>  }
> @@ -1465,7 +1465,7 @@ int kvm_s390_shadow_fault(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, struct gmap *sg,
>  	 * tables/pointers we read stay valid - unshadowing is however
>  	 * always possible - only guest_table_lock protects us.
>  	 */
> -	ipte_lock(vcpu);
> +	ipte_lock(vcpu->kvm);
>  
>  	rc = gmap_shadow_pgt_lookup(sg, saddr, &pgt, &dat_protection, &fake);
>  	if (rc)
> @@ -1499,7 +1499,7 @@ int kvm_s390_shadow_fault(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, struct gmap *sg,
>  	pte.p |= dat_protection;
>  	if (!rc)
>  		rc = gmap_shadow_page(sg, saddr, __pte(pte.val));
> -	ipte_unlock(vcpu);
> +	ipte_unlock(vcpu->kvm);
>  	mmap_read_unlock(sg->mm);
>  	return rc;
>  }
> diff --git a/arch/s390/kvm/gaccess.h b/arch/s390/kvm/gaccess.h
> index 1124ff282012..9408d6cc8e2c 100644
> --- a/arch/s390/kvm/gaccess.h
> +++ b/arch/s390/kvm/gaccess.h
> @@ -440,9 +440,9 @@ int read_guest_real(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, unsigned long gra, void *data,
>  	return access_guest_real(vcpu, gra, data, len, 0);
>  }
>  
> -void ipte_lock(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu);
> -void ipte_unlock(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu);
> -int ipte_lock_held(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu);
> +void ipte_lock(struct kvm *kvm);
> +void ipte_unlock(struct kvm *kvm);
> +int ipte_lock_held(struct kvm *kvm);
>  int kvm_s390_check_low_addr_prot_real(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, unsigned long gra);
>  
>  /* MVPG PEI indication bits */
> diff --git a/arch/s390/kvm/priv.c b/arch/s390/kvm/priv.c
> index 83bb5cf97282..12c464c7cddf 100644
> --- a/arch/s390/kvm/priv.c
> +++ b/arch/s390/kvm/priv.c
> @@ -442,7 +442,7 @@ static int handle_ipte_interlock(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
>  	vcpu->stat.instruction_ipte_interlock++;
>  	if (psw_bits(vcpu->arch.sie_block->gpsw).pstate)
>  		return kvm_s390_inject_program_int(vcpu, PGM_PRIVILEGED_OP);
> -	wait_event(vcpu->kvm->arch.ipte_wq, !ipte_lock_held(vcpu));
> +	wait_event(vcpu->kvm->arch.ipte_wq, !ipte_lock_held(vcpu->kvm));
>  	kvm_s390_retry_instr(vcpu);
>  	VCPU_EVENT(vcpu, 4, "%s", "retrying ipte interlock operation");
>  	return 0;
> @@ -1471,7 +1471,7 @@ static int handle_tprot(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
>  	access_key = (operand2 & 0xf0) >> 4;
>  
>  	if (vcpu->arch.sie_block->gpsw.mask & PSW_MASK_DAT)
> -		ipte_lock(vcpu);
> +		ipte_lock(vcpu->kvm);
>  
>  	ret = guest_translate_address_with_key(vcpu, address, ar, &gpa,
>  					       GACC_STORE, access_key);
> @@ -1508,7 +1508,7 @@ static int handle_tprot(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
>  	}
>  
>  	if (vcpu->arch.sie_block->gpsw.mask & PSW_MASK_DAT)
> -		ipte_unlock(vcpu);
> +		ipte_unlock(vcpu->kvm);
>  	return ret;
>  }
>  


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 29+ messages in thread

* Re: [PATCH v10 2/3] KVM: s390: guest support for topology function
  2022-06-20 12:54 ` [PATCH v10 2/3] KVM: s390: guest support for topology function Pierre Morel
  2022-06-24  6:22   ` Janosch Frank
  2022-06-24  6:56   ` Nico Boehr
@ 2022-06-24  9:32   ` Claudio Imbrenda
  2022-06-27 17:40     ` Pierre Morel
  2022-06-24 15:09   ` Janis Schoetterl-Glausch
  2022-06-28  8:59   ` Janis Schoetterl-Glausch
  4 siblings, 1 reply; 29+ messages in thread
From: Claudio Imbrenda @ 2022-06-24  9:32 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Pierre Morel
  Cc: kvm, linux-s390, linux-kernel, borntraeger, frankja, cohuck,
	david, thuth, hca, gor, wintera, seiden, nrb

On Mon, 20 Jun 2022 14:54:36 +0200
Pierre Morel <pmorel@linux.ibm.com> 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/include/asm/kvm_host.h b/arch/s390/include/asm/kvm_host.h
> index 766028d54a3e..bb54196d4ed6 100644
> --- a/arch/s390/include/asm/kvm_host.h
> +++ b/arch/s390/include/asm/kvm_host.h
> @@ -97,15 +97,19 @@ struct bsca_block {
>  	union ipte_control ipte_control;
>  	__u64	reserved[5];
>  	__u64	mcn;
> -	__u64	reserved2;
> +#define SCA_UTILITY_MTCR	0x8000
> +	__u16	utility;
> +	__u8	reserved2[6];
>  	struct bsca_entry cpu[KVM_S390_BSCA_CPU_SLOTS];
>  };
>  
>  struct esca_block {
>  	union ipte_control ipte_control;
> -	__u64   reserved1[7];
> +	__u64   reserved1[6];
> +	__u16	utility;
> +	__u8	reserved2[6];
>  	__u64   mcn[4];
> -	__u64   reserved2[20];
> +	__u64   reserved3[20];
>  	struct esca_entry cpu[KVM_S390_ESCA_CPU_SLOTS];
>  };
>  
> @@ -249,6 +253,7 @@ struct kvm_s390_sie_block {
>  #define ECB_SPECI	0x08
>  #define ECB_SRSI	0x04
>  #define ECB_HOSTPROTINT	0x02
> +#define ECB_PTF		0x01
>  	__u8	ecb;			/* 0x0061 */
>  #define ECB2_CMMA	0x80
>  #define ECB2_IEP	0x20
> 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

the format for kdoc is:

	function_name - very short description

please add a very short description. something like:

	kvm_s390_sca_set_mtcr - update mtcr to signal topology change

> + * @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)
> +{
> +	struct bsca_block *sca = kvm->arch.sca; /* SCA version doesn't matter */
> +
> +	ipte_lock(kvm);
> +	sca->utility |= SCA_UTILITY_MTCR;
> +	ipte_unlock(kvm);
> +}
> +
>  static int kvm_s390_vm_set_attr(struct kvm *kvm, struct kvm_device_attr *attr)
>  {
>  	int ret;
> @@ -3143,7 +3162,6 @@ __u64 kvm_s390_get_cpu_timer(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
>  
>  void kvm_arch_vcpu_load(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, int cpu)
>  {
> -
>  	gmap_enable(vcpu->arch.enabled_gmap);
>  	kvm_s390_set_cpuflags(vcpu, CPUSTAT_RUNNING);
>  	if (vcpu->arch.cputm_enabled && !is_vcpu_idle(vcpu))
> @@ -3272,6 +3290,11 @@ static int kvm_s390_vcpu_setup(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
>  		vcpu->arch.sie_block->ecb |= ECB_HOSTPROTINT;
>  	if (test_kvm_facility(vcpu->kvm, 9))
>  		vcpu->arch.sie_block->ecb |= ECB_SRSI;
> +
> +	/* PTF needs guest facilities to enable interpretation */
> +	if (test_kvm_facility(vcpu->kvm, 11))
> +		vcpu->arch.sie_block->ecb |= ECB_PTF;
> +
>  	if (test_kvm_facility(vcpu->kvm, 73))
>  		vcpu->arch.sie_block->ecb |= ECB_TE;
>  	if (!kvm_is_ucontrol(vcpu->kvm))
> @@ -3403,6 +3426,8 @@ int kvm_arch_vcpu_create(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
>  	rc = kvm_s390_vcpu_setup(vcpu);
>  	if (rc)
>  		goto out_ucontrol_uninit;
> +
> +	kvm_s390_sca_set_mtcr(vcpu->kvm);
>  	return 0;
>  
>  out_ucontrol_uninit:
> diff --git a/arch/s390/kvm/priv.c b/arch/s390/kvm/priv.c
> index 12c464c7cddf..77a692238585 100644
> --- a/arch/s390/kvm/priv.c
> +++ b/arch/s390/kvm/priv.c
> @@ -873,10 +873,13 @@ static int handle_stsi(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
>  	if (vcpu->arch.sie_block->gpsw.mask & PSW_MASK_PSTATE)
>  		return kvm_s390_inject_program_int(vcpu, PGM_PRIVILEGED_OP);
>  
> -	if (fc > 3) {
> -		kvm_s390_set_psw_cc(vcpu, 3);
> -		return 0;
> -	}
> +	/* Bailout forbidden function codes */
> +	if (fc > 3 && fc != 15)
> +		goto out_no_data;
> +
> +	/* fc 15 is provided with PTF/CPU topology support */
> +	if (fc == 15 && !test_kvm_facility(vcpu->kvm, 11))
> +		goto out_no_data;
>  
>  	if (vcpu->run->s.regs.gprs[0] & 0x0fffff00
>  	    || vcpu->run->s.regs.gprs[1] & 0xffff0000)
> @@ -910,6 +913,10 @@ static int handle_stsi(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
>  			goto out_no_data;
>  		handle_stsi_3_2_2(vcpu, (void *) mem);
>  		break;
> +	case 15:
> +		trace_kvm_s390_handle_stsi(vcpu, fc, sel1, sel2, operand2);
> +		insert_stsi_usr_data(vcpu, operand2, ar, fc, sel1, sel2);
> +		return -EREMOTE;
>  	}
>  	if (kvm_s390_pv_cpu_is_protected(vcpu)) {
>  		memcpy((void *)sida_origin(vcpu->arch.sie_block), (void *)mem,
> diff --git a/arch/s390/kvm/vsie.c b/arch/s390/kvm/vsie.c
> index dada78b92691..4f4fee697550 100644
> --- a/arch/s390/kvm/vsie.c
> +++ b/arch/s390/kvm/vsie.c
> @@ -503,6 +503,9 @@ static int shadow_scb(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, struct vsie_page *vsie_page)
>  	/* Host-protection-interruption introduced with ESOP */
>  	if (test_kvm_cpu_feat(vcpu->kvm, KVM_S390_VM_CPU_FEAT_ESOP))
>  		scb_s->ecb |= scb_o->ecb & ECB_HOSTPROTINT;
> +	/* CPU Topology */
> +	if (test_kvm_facility(vcpu->kvm, 11))
> +		scb_s->ecb |= scb_o->ecb & ECB_PTF;
>  	/* transactional execution */
>  	if (test_kvm_facility(vcpu->kvm, 73) && wants_tx) {
>  		/* remap the prefix is tx is toggled on */


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 29+ messages in thread

* Re: [PATCH v10 2/3] KVM: s390: guest support for topology function
  2022-06-20 12:54 ` [PATCH v10 2/3] KVM: s390: guest support for topology function Pierre Morel
                     ` (2 preceding siblings ...)
  2022-06-24  9:32   ` Claudio Imbrenda
@ 2022-06-24 15:09   ` Janis Schoetterl-Glausch
  2022-06-27 14:36     ` Pierre Morel
  2022-06-28  8:59   ` Janis Schoetterl-Glausch
  4 siblings, 1 reply; 29+ messages in thread
From: Janis Schoetterl-Glausch @ 2022-06-24 15:09 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Pierre Morel, kvm
  Cc: linux-s390, linux-kernel, borntraeger, frankja, cohuck, david,
	thuth, imbrenda, hca, gor, wintera, seiden, nrb

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
> + * @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)
> +{
> +	struct bsca_block *sca = kvm->arch.sca; /* SCA version doesn't matter */
> +
> +	ipte_lock(kvm);

Why do we need to take the ipte lock here and in patch 3?

> +	sca->utility |= SCA_UTILITY_MTCR;
> +	ipte_unlock(kvm);
> +}

[...]

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 29+ messages in thread

* Re: [PATCH v10 2/3] KVM: s390: guest support for topology function
  2022-06-24  6:56   ` Nico Boehr
@ 2022-06-27 13:16     ` Pierre Morel
  2022-06-28 14:38     ` Pierre Morel
  1 sibling, 0 replies; 29+ messages in thread
From: Pierre Morel @ 2022-06-27 13:16 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Nico Boehr, kvm
  Cc: linux-s390, linux-kernel, borntraeger, frankja, cohuck, david,
	thuth, imbrenda, hca, gor, wintera, seiden



On 6/24/22 08:56, Nico Boehr wrote:
> Quoting Pierre Morel (2022-06-20 14:54:36)
> [...]
>> diff --git a/arch/s390/include/asm/kvm_host.h b/arch/s390/include/asm/kvm_host.h
>> index 766028d54a3e..bb54196d4ed6 100644
>> --- a/arch/s390/include/asm/kvm_host.h
>> +++ b/arch/s390/include/asm/kvm_host.h
> [...]
>> @@ -3403,6 +3426,8 @@ int kvm_arch_vcpu_create(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
>>          rc = kvm_s390_vcpu_setup(vcpu);
>>          if (rc)
>>                  goto out_ucontrol_uninit;
>> +
>> +       kvm_s390_sca_set_mtcr(vcpu->kvm);
> 
> We set the MTCR in the vcpu create. Does it also make sense to set it in kvm_arch_vcpu_destroy?

I think you are right.

Even we only destroy vCPU when we destroy the VM and I think that it is 
not currently needed, it would be more logical to do so, and we will be 
ready for the day we can unplug vCPUs.

Unless somebody has another opinion I add the entry.

> 
> [...]
>> diff --git a/arch/s390/kvm/priv.c b/arch/s390/kvm/priv.c
>> index 12c464c7cddf..77a692238585 100644
>> --- a/arch/s390/kvm/priv.c
>> +++ b/arch/s390/kvm/priv.c
>> @@ -873,10 +873,13 @@ static int handle_stsi(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
> [...]
>> +       case 15:
>> +               trace_kvm_s390_handle_stsi(vcpu, fc, sel1, sel2, operand2);
>> +               insert_stsi_usr_data(vcpu, operand2, ar, fc, sel1, sel2);
>> +               return -EREMOTE;
> 
> Maybe the API documentation should clearly note that once you turn on KVM_CAP_S390_CPU_TOPOLOGY, you will get exits to userspace for STSI 15.x.y, regardless of whether KVM_CAP_S390_USER_STSI is on or off.
> 
> Other than that, looks good, hence:
> 
> Reviewed-by: Nico Boehr <nrb@linux.ibm.com>
> 

-- 
Pierre Morel
IBM Lab Boeblingen

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 29+ messages in thread

* Re: [PATCH v10 1/3] KVM: s390: ipte lock for SCA access should be contained in KVM
  2022-06-24  6:57   ` Nico Boehr
@ 2022-06-27 13:28     ` Pierre Morel
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 29+ messages in thread
From: Pierre Morel @ 2022-06-27 13:28 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Nico Boehr, kvm
  Cc: linux-s390, linux-kernel, borntraeger, frankja, cohuck, david,
	thuth, imbrenda, hca, gor, wintera, seiden



On 6/24/22 08:57, Nico Boehr wrote:
> Quoting Pierre Morel (2022-06-20 14:54:35)
>> We can check if SIIF is enabled by testing the sclp_info struct
>> instead of testing the sie control block eca variable.
>> sclp.has_ssif is the only requirement to set ECA_SII anyway
>> so we can go straight to the source for that.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Pierre Morel <pmorel@linux.ibm.com>
>> Reviewed-by: Janosch Frank <frankja@linux.ibm.com>
>> Reviewed-by: David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>
> 
> Reviewed-by: Nico Boehr <nrb@linux.ibm.com>
> 

Thanks,
Pierre

-- 
Pierre Morel
IBM Lab Boeblingen

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 29+ messages in thread

* Re: [PATCH v10 1/3] KVM: s390: ipte lock for SCA access should be contained in KVM
  2022-06-24  5:47   ` Janosch Frank
@ 2022-06-27 13:29     ` Pierre Morel
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 29+ messages in thread
From: Pierre Morel @ 2022-06-27 13:29 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Janosch Frank, kvm
  Cc: linux-s390, linux-kernel, borntraeger, cohuck, david, thuth,
	imbrenda, hca, gor, wintera, seiden, nrb



On 6/24/22 07:47, Janosch Frank wrote:
> On 6/20/22 14:54, Pierre Morel wrote:
>> We can check if SIIF is enabled by testing the sclp_info struct
>> instead of testing the sie control block eca variable.
>> sclp.has_ssif is the only requirement to set ECA_SII anyway
>> so we can go straight to the source for that.
> 
> 
> The subject and commit description don't fit together.
> You're doing two things in this patch and only describe one of them.
> 
> I'd suggest something like this:
> 
> KVM: s390: Cleanup ipte lock access and SIIF facility checks
> 
> We can check if SIIF is enabled by testing the sclp_info struct instead 
> of testing the sie control block eca variable as that facility is always 
> enabled if available.
> 
> Also let's cleanup all the ipte related struct member accesses which 
> currently happen by referencing the KVM struct via the VCPU struct. 
> Making the KVM struct the parameter to the ipte_* functions removes one 
> level of indirection which makes the code more readable.
> 

OK done.


> 
> Other than that I'm happy with this patch.


Thanks,

Pierre



-- 
Pierre Morel
IBM Lab Boeblingen

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 29+ messages in thread

* Re: [PATCH v10 2/3] KVM: s390: guest support for topology function
  2022-06-24  6:22   ` Janosch Frank
@ 2022-06-27 13:30     ` Pierre Morel
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 29+ messages in thread
From: Pierre Morel @ 2022-06-27 13:30 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Janosch Frank, kvm
  Cc: linux-s390, linux-kernel, borntraeger, cohuck, david, thuth,
	imbrenda, hca, gor, wintera, seiden, nrb



On 6/24/22 08:22, Janosch Frank 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/include/asm/kvm_host.h 
>> b/arch/s390/include/asm/kvm_host.h
>> index 766028d54a3e..bb54196d4ed6 100644
>> --- a/arch/s390/include/asm/kvm_host.h
>> +++ b/arch/s390/include/asm/kvm_host.h
>> @@ -97,15 +97,19 @@ struct bsca_block {
>>       union ipte_control ipte_control;
>>       __u64    reserved[5];
>>       __u64    mcn;
>> -    __u64    reserved2;
>> +#define SCA_UTILITY_MTCR    0x8000
> 
> I'm not too happy having this in the bsca but not in the esca. I'd 
> suggest putting it outside the structs or to go with my next suggestion:
> 
> Just make it a bit field struct and make that a member in bsca/esca.
> No messing about with ANDing, ORing etc.
> 
> It's unfortunate that we only use one bit in that field but I'd still 
> find it easier to read.

OK

> 
>> +    __u16    utility;
>> +    __u8    reserved2[6];
>>       struct bsca_entry cpu[KVM_S390_BSCA_CPU_SLOTS];
>>   };
>>   struct esca_block {
>>       union ipte_control ipte_control;
>> -    __u64   reserved1[7];
>> +    __u64   reserved1[6];
>> +    __u16    utility;
>> +    __u8    reserved2[6];
>>       __u64   mcn[4];
>> -    __u64   reserved2[20];
>> +    __u64   reserved3[20];
>>       struct esca_entry cpu[KVM_S390_ESCA_CPU_SLOTS];
>>   };
>> @@ -249,6 +253,7 @@ struct kvm_s390_sie_block {
>>   #define ECB_SPECI    0x08
>>   #define ECB_SRSI    0x04
>>   #define ECB_HOSTPROTINT    0x02
>> +#define ECB_PTF        0x01
>>       __u8    ecb;            /* 0x0061 */
>>   #define ECB2_CMMA    0x80
>>   #define ECB2_IEP    0x20
>> 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
>> + * @kvm: guest KVM description
>> + *
>> + * Is only relevant if the topology facility is present,
>> + * the caller should check KVM facility 11
> 
> I'm not sure that this statement make sense since you set the mctr in 
> kvm_s390_vcpu_setup() unconditionally and don't check stfle 11.
> 
> I think we can remove the second line from this.
> 
>> + *
>> + * Updates the Multiprocessor Topology-Change-Report to signal
>> + * the guest with a topology change.
> 
> Please swap those two comments
> 
>> + */
>> +static void kvm_s390_sca_set_mtcr(struct kvm *kvm)
>> +{
>> +    struct bsca_block *sca = kvm->arch.sca; /* SCA version doesn't 
>> matter */
> 
> Please put the comment above the statement and maybe extend it a bit:
> SCA version doesn't matter, the utility field always has the same offset.
> 
>> +
>> +    ipte_lock(kvm);
>> +    sca->utility |= SCA_UTILITY_MTCR;
>> +    ipte_unlock(kvm);
>> +}
>> +
>>   static int kvm_s390_vm_set_attr(struct kvm *kvm, struct 
>> kvm_device_attr *attr)
>>   {
>>       int ret;
>> @@ -3143,7 +3162,6 @@ __u64 kvm_s390_get_cpu_timer(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
>>   void kvm_arch_vcpu_load(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, int cpu)
>>   {
>> -
> 
> Please remove that change
> 
>>       gmap_enable(vcpu->arch.enabled_gmap);
>>       kvm_s390_set_cpuflags(vcpu, CPUSTAT_RUNNING);
>>       if (vcpu->arch.cputm_enabled && !is_vcpu_idle(vcpu))
>> @@ -3272,6 +3290,11 @@ static int kvm_s390_vcpu_setup(struct kvm_vcpu 
>> *vcpu)
>>           vcpu->arch.sie_block->ecb |= ECB_HOSTPROTINT;
>>       if (test_kvm_facility(vcpu->kvm, 9))
>>           vcpu->arch.sie_block->ecb |= ECB_SRSI;
>> +
>> +    /* PTF needs guest facilities to enable interpretation */
>> +    if (test_kvm_facility(vcpu->kvm, 11))
>> +        vcpu->arch.sie_block->ecb |= ECB_PTF;
>> +
>>       if (test_kvm_facility(vcpu->kvm, 73))
>>           vcpu->arch.sie_block->ecb |= ECB_TE;
>>       if (!kvm_is_ucontrol(vcpu->kvm))
>> @@ -3403,6 +3426,8 @@ int kvm_arch_vcpu_create(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
>>       rc = kvm_s390_vcpu_setup(vcpu);
>>       if (rc)
>>           goto out_ucontrol_uninit;
>> +
>> +    kvm_s390_sca_set_mtcr(vcpu->kvm);
>>       return 0;
>>   out_ucontrol_uninit:
>> diff --git a/arch/s390/kvm/priv.c b/arch/s390/kvm/priv.c
>> index 12c464c7cddf..77a692238585 100644
>> --- a/arch/s390/kvm/priv.c
>> +++ b/arch/s390/kvm/priv.c
>> @@ -873,10 +873,13 @@ static int handle_stsi(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
>>       if (vcpu->arch.sie_block->gpsw.mask & PSW_MASK_PSTATE)
>>           return kvm_s390_inject_program_int(vcpu, PGM_PRIVILEGED_OP);
>> -    if (fc > 3) {
>> -        kvm_s390_set_psw_cc(vcpu, 3);
>> -        return 0;
>> -    }
>> +    /* Bailout forbidden function codes */
>> +    if (fc > 3 && fc != 15)
>> +        goto out_no_data;
>> +
>> +    /* fc 15 is provided with PTF/CPU topology support */
>> +    if (fc == 15 && !test_kvm_facility(vcpu->kvm, 11))
>> +        goto out_no_data;
>>       if (vcpu->run->s.regs.gprs[0] & 0x0fffff00
>>           || vcpu->run->s.regs.gprs[1] & 0xffff0000)
>> @@ -910,6 +913,10 @@ static int handle_stsi(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
>>               goto out_no_data;
>>           handle_stsi_3_2_2(vcpu, (void *) mem);
>>           break;
>> +    case 15:
>> +        trace_kvm_s390_handle_stsi(vcpu, fc, sel1, sel2, operand2);
>> +        insert_stsi_usr_data(vcpu, operand2, ar, fc, sel1, sel2);
>> +        return -EREMOTE;
>>       }
>>       if (kvm_s390_pv_cpu_is_protected(vcpu)) {
>>           memcpy((void *)sida_origin(vcpu->arch.sie_block), (void *)mem,
>> diff --git a/arch/s390/kvm/vsie.c b/arch/s390/kvm/vsie.c
>> index dada78b92691..4f4fee697550 100644
>> --- a/arch/s390/kvm/vsie.c
>> +++ b/arch/s390/kvm/vsie.c
>> @@ -503,6 +503,9 @@ static int shadow_scb(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, 
>> struct vsie_page *vsie_page)
>>       /* Host-protection-interruption introduced with ESOP */
>>       if (test_kvm_cpu_feat(vcpu->kvm, KVM_S390_VM_CPU_FEAT_ESOP))
>>           scb_s->ecb |= scb_o->ecb & ECB_HOSTPROTINT;
>> +    /* CPU Topology */
> 
> Maybe also add:
> This facility only uses the utility field of the SCA and none of the cpu 
> entries that are problematic with the other interpretation facilities so 
> we can pass it through.
> 
>> +    if (test_kvm_facility(vcpu->kvm, 11))
>> +        scb_s->ecb |= scb_o->ecb & ECB_PTF;
>>       /* transactional execution */
>>       if (test_kvm_facility(vcpu->kvm, 73) && wants_tx) {
>>           /* remap the prefix is tx is toggled on */
> 


OK with all comments,
I make the changes.

Thanks,
Pierre

-- 
Pierre Morel
IBM Lab Boeblingen

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 29+ messages in thread

* Re: [PATCH v10 3/3] KVM: s390: resetting the Topology-Change-Report
  2022-06-24  6:50   ` Janosch Frank
@ 2022-06-27 13:34     ` Pierre Morel
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 29+ messages in thread
From: Pierre Morel @ 2022-06-27 13:34 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Janosch Frank, kvm
  Cc: linux-s390, linux-kernel, borntraeger, cohuck, david, thuth,
	imbrenda, hca, gor, wintera, seiden, nrb



On 6/24/22 08:50, Janosch Frank wrote:
> On 6/20/22 14:54, Pierre Morel wrote:
>> During a subsystem reset the Topology-Change-Report is cleared.
>> Let's give userland the possibility to clear the MTCR in the case
>> of a subsystem reset.
>>
>> To migrate the MTCR, we give userland the possibility to
>> query the MTCR state.
>>
>> We indicate KVM support for the CPU topology facility with a new
>> KVM capability: KVM_CAP_S390_CPU_TOPOLOGY.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Pierre Morel <pmorel@linux.ibm.com>
>> ---
>>   Documentation/virt/kvm/api.rst   | 31 +++++++++++
>>   arch/s390/include/uapi/asm/kvm.h | 10 ++++
>>   arch/s390/kvm/kvm-s390.c         | 96 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>   include/uapi/linux/kvm.h         |  1 +
>>   4 files changed, 138 insertions(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/Documentation/virt/kvm/api.rst 
>> b/Documentation/virt/kvm/api.rst
>> index 11e00a46c610..326f8b7e7671 100644
>> --- a/Documentation/virt/kvm/api.rst
>> +++ b/Documentation/virt/kvm/api.rst
>> @@ -7956,6 +7956,37 @@ should adjust CPUID leaf 0xA to reflect that 
>> the PMU is disabled.
>>   When enabled, KVM will exit to userspace with KVM_EXIT_SYSTEM_EVENT of
>>   type KVM_SYSTEM_EVENT_SUSPEND to process the guest suspend request.
>> +8.37 KVM_CAP_S390_CPU_TOPOLOGY
>> +------------------------------
>> +
>> +:Capability: KVM_CAP_S390_CPU_TOPOLOGY
>> +:Architectures: s390
>> +:Type: vm
>> +
>> +This capability indicates that KVM will provide the S390 CPU Topology
>> +facility which consist of the interpretation of the PTF instruction for
>> +the Function Code 2 along with interception and forwarding of both the
> 
> Making function code capital surprises me when reading.

wanted to highlight FC.
I remove it.

> 
>> +PTF instruction with Function Codes 0 or 1 and the STSI(15,1,x)
>> +instruction to the userland hypervisor.
>> +
>> +The stfle facility 11, CPU Topology facility, should not be provided
> 
> s/provided/indicated
> 
OK

>> +to the guest without this capability.
>> +
>> +When this capability is present, KVM provides a new attribute group
>> +on vm fd, KVM_S390_VM_CPU_TOPOLOGY.
>> +This new attribute allows to get, set or clear the Modified Change
>> +Topology Report (MTCR) bit of the SCA through the kvm_device_attr
>> +structure.
>> +
>> +Getting the MTCR bit is realized by using a kvm_device_attr attr
>> +entry value of KVM_GET_DEVICE_ATTR and with kvm_device_attr addr
>> +entry pointing to the address of a struct kvm_cpu_topology.
>> +The value of the MTCR is return by the bit mtcr of the structure. > +
>> +When using KVM_SET_DEVICE_ATTR the MTCR is set by using the
>> +attr->attr value KVM_S390_VM_CPU_TOPO_MTCR_SET and cleared by
>> +using KVM_S390_VM_CPU_TOPO_MTCR_CLEAR.
> 
> I have the feeling that we can drop the two blocks above and we won't 
> loose information.
> 
>> +/**
>> + * kvm_s390_sca_clear_mtcr
>> + * @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_clear_mtcr(struct kvm *kvm)
> 
> This is a set operation with the value 0 and that's clearly visible by 
> the copied code. If you make the utility entry a bitfield you can easily 
> set 0/1 via one function without doing the bit manipulation by hand.

OK

> 
> I.e. please only use one set function.
> 
>> +{
>> +    struct bsca_block *sca = kvm->arch.sca; /* SCA version doesn't 
>> matter */
>> +
>> +    ipte_lock(kvm);
>> +    sca->utility &= ~SCA_UTILITY_MTCR;
>> +    ipte_unlock(kvm);
>> +}
>> +
>> +static int kvm_s390_set_topology(struct kvm *kvm, struct 
>> kvm_device_attr *attr)
>> +{
>> +    if (!test_kvm_facility(kvm, 11))
>> +        return -ENXIO;
>> +
>> +    switch (attr->attr) {
>> +    case KVM_S390_VM_CPU_TOPO_MTCR_SET:
>> +        kvm_s390_sca_set_mtcr(kvm);
>> +        break;
>> +    case KVM_S390_VM_CPU_TOPO_MTCR_CLEAR:
>> +        kvm_s390_sca_clear_mtcr(kvm);
>> +        break;
>> +    }
> 
> By having two endpoints here we trade an easy check with having to 
> access process memory to grab the value we want to set.
> 
> I'm still torn about this.
> 
>> +    return 0;
>> +}
>> +
>> +/**
>> + * kvm_s390_sca_get_mtcr
>> + * @kvm: guest KVM description
>> + *
>> + * Is only relevant if the topology facility is present,
>> + * the caller should check KVM facility 11
>> + *
>> + * reports to QEMU the Multiprocessor Topology-Change-Report.
>> + */
>> +static int kvm_s390_sca_get_mtcr(struct kvm *kvm)
>> +{
>> +    struct bsca_block *sca = kvm->arch.sca; /* SCA version doesn't 
>> matter */
> 
> Same comments as with the set_mtcr()

OK

> 
>> +    int val;
>> +
>> +    ipte_lock(kvm);
>> +    val = sca->utility & SCA_UTILITY_MTCR;
>> +    ipte_unlock(kvm);
>> +
>> +    return val;
>> +}
>> +
>> +static int kvm_s390_get_topology(struct kvm *kvm, struct 
>> kvm_device_attr *attr)
>> +{
>> +    struct kvm_cpu_topology topo = {};
>> +
>> +    if (!test_kvm_facility(kvm, 11))
>> +        return -ENXIO;
>> +
>> +    topo.mtcr = kvm_s390_sca_get_mtcr(kvm) ? 1 : 0;
>> +    if (copy_to_user((void __user *)attr->addr, &topo, sizeof(topo)))
>> +        return -EFAULT;
>> +
>> +    return 0;
>> +}
>> +
>>   static int kvm_s390_vm_set_attr(struct kvm *kvm, struct 
>> kvm_device_attr *attr)
>>   {
>>       int ret;
>> @@ -1730,6 +1817,9 @@ static int kvm_s390_vm_set_attr(struct kvm *kvm, 
>> struct kvm_device_attr *attr)
>>       case KVM_S390_VM_MIGRATION:
>>           ret = kvm_s390_vm_set_migration(kvm, attr);
>>           break;
>> +    case KVM_S390_VM_CPU_TOPOLOGY:
>> +        ret = kvm_s390_set_topology(kvm, attr);
>> +        break;
>>       default:
>>           ret = -ENXIO;
>>           break;
>> @@ -1755,6 +1845,9 @@ static int kvm_s390_vm_get_attr(struct kvm *kvm, 
>> struct kvm_device_attr *attr)
>>       case KVM_S390_VM_MIGRATION:
>>           ret = kvm_s390_vm_get_migration(kvm, attr);
>>           break;
>> +    case KVM_S390_VM_CPU_TOPOLOGY:
>> +        ret = kvm_s390_get_topology(kvm, attr);
>> +        break;
>>       default:
>>           ret = -ENXIO;
>>           break;
>> @@ -1828,6 +1921,9 @@ static int kvm_s390_vm_has_attr(struct kvm *kvm, 
>> struct kvm_device_attr *attr)
>>       case KVM_S390_VM_MIGRATION:
>>           ret = 0;
>>           break;
>> +    case KVM_S390_VM_CPU_TOPOLOGY:
>> +        ret = test_kvm_facility(kvm, 11) ? 0 : -ENXIO;
>> +        break;
>>       default:
>>           ret = -ENXIO;
>>           break;
>> diff --git a/include/uapi/linux/kvm.h b/include/uapi/linux/kvm.h
>> index 5088bd9f1922..33317d820032 100644
>> --- a/include/uapi/linux/kvm.h
>> +++ b/include/uapi/linux/kvm.h
>> @@ -1157,6 +1157,7 @@ struct kvm_ppc_resize_hpt {
>>   #define KVM_CAP_VM_TSC_CONTROL 214
>>   #define KVM_CAP_SYSTEM_EVENT_DATA 215
>>   #define KVM_CAP_ARM_SYSTEM_SUSPEND 216
>> +#define KVM_CAP_S390_CPU_TOPOLOGY 217
>>   #ifdef KVM_CAP_IRQ_ROUTING
> 

-- 
Pierre Morel
IBM Lab Boeblingen

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 29+ messages in thread

* Re: [PATCH v10 2/3] KVM: s390: guest support for topology function
  2022-06-24 15:09   ` Janis Schoetterl-Glausch
@ 2022-06-27 14:36     ` Pierre Morel
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 29+ messages in thread
From: Pierre Morel @ 2022-06-27 14:36 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Janis Schoetterl-Glausch, kvm
  Cc: linux-s390, linux-kernel, borntraeger, frankja, cohuck, david,
	thuth, imbrenda, hca, gor, wintera, seiden, nrb



On 6/24/22 17:09, 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
>> + * @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)
>> +{
>> +	struct bsca_block *sca = kvm->arch.sca; /* SCA version doesn't matter */
>> +
>> +	ipte_lock(kvm);
> 
> Why do we need to take the ipte lock here and in patch 3?

That is a good question.
I fear I was tired as I understood that from the documentation, after 
re-reading, we need an interlocked-update not an ipte lock update.
... I have to change that


> 
>> +	sca->utility |= SCA_UTILITY_MTCR;
>> +	ipte_unlock(kvm);
>> +}
> 
> [...]
> 

-- 
Pierre Morel
IBM Lab Boeblingen

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 29+ messages in thread

* Re: [PATCH v10 2/3] KVM: s390: guest support for topology function
  2022-06-24  9:32   ` Claudio Imbrenda
@ 2022-06-27 17:40     ` Pierre Morel
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 29+ messages in thread
From: Pierre Morel @ 2022-06-27 17:40 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Claudio Imbrenda
  Cc: kvm, linux-s390, linux-kernel, borntraeger, frankja, cohuck,
	david, thuth, hca, gor, wintera, seiden, nrb



On 6/24/22 11:32, Claudio Imbrenda wrote:
> On Mon, 20 Jun 2022 14:54:36 +0200
> Pierre Morel <pmorel@linux.ibm.com> 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/include/asm/kvm_host.h b/arch/s390/include/asm/kvm_host.h
>> index 766028d54a3e..bb54196d4ed6 100644
>> --- a/arch/s390/include/asm/kvm_host.h
>> +++ b/arch/s390/include/asm/kvm_host.h
>> @@ -97,15 +97,19 @@ struct bsca_block {
>>   	union ipte_control ipte_control;
>>   	__u64	reserved[5];
>>   	__u64	mcn;
>> -	__u64	reserved2;
>> +#define SCA_UTILITY_MTCR	0x8000
>> +	__u16	utility;
>> +	__u8	reserved2[6];
>>   	struct bsca_entry cpu[KVM_S390_BSCA_CPU_SLOTS];
>>   };
>>   
>>   struct esca_block {
>>   	union ipte_control ipte_control;
>> -	__u64   reserved1[7];
>> +	__u64   reserved1[6];
>> +	__u16	utility;
>> +	__u8	reserved2[6];
>>   	__u64   mcn[4];
>> -	__u64   reserved2[20];
>> +	__u64   reserved3[20];
>>   	struct esca_entry cpu[KVM_S390_ESCA_CPU_SLOTS];
>>   };
>>   
>> @@ -249,6 +253,7 @@ struct kvm_s390_sie_block {
>>   #define ECB_SPECI	0x08
>>   #define ECB_SRSI	0x04
>>   #define ECB_HOSTPROTINT	0x02
>> +#define ECB_PTF		0x01
>>   	__u8	ecb;			/* 0x0061 */
>>   #define ECB2_CMMA	0x80
>>   #define ECB2_IEP	0x20
>> 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
> 
> the format for kdoc is:
> 
> 	function_name - very short description
> 
> please add a very short description. something like:
> 
> 	kvm_s390_sca_set_mtcr - update mtcr to signal topology change


OK, thanks,

Pierre

-- 
Pierre Morel
IBM Lab Boeblingen

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 29+ messages in thread

* Re: [PATCH v10 2/3] KVM: s390: guest support for topology function
  2022-06-20 12:54 ` [PATCH v10 2/3] KVM: s390: guest support for topology function Pierre Morel
                     ` (3 preceding siblings ...)
  2022-06-24 15:09   ` Janis Schoetterl-Glausch
@ 2022-06-28  8:59   ` Janis Schoetterl-Glausch
  2022-06-28 10:58     ` Pierre Morel
  2022-06-28 10:59     ` Pierre Morel
  4 siblings, 2 replies; 29+ messages in thread
From: Janis Schoetterl-Glausch @ 2022-06-28  8:59 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Pierre Morel, kvm
  Cc: linux-s390, linux-kernel, borntraeger, frankja, cohuck, david,
	thuth, imbrenda, hca, gor, wintera, seiden, nrb

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.

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

[...]


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 29+ messages in thread

* Re: [PATCH v10 2/3] KVM: s390: guest support for topology function
  2022-06-28  8:59   ` Janis Schoetterl-Glausch
@ 2022-06-28 10:58     ` Pierre Morel
  2022-06-28 12:18       ` Janis Schoetterl-Glausch
  2022-06-28 10:59     ` Pierre Morel
  1 sibling, 1 reply; 29+ messages in thread
From: Pierre Morel @ 2022-06-28 10:58 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Janis Schoetterl-Glausch, kvm
  Cc: linux-s390, linux-kernel, borntraeger, frankja, cohuck, david,
	thuth, imbrenda, hca, gor, wintera, seiden, nrb



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

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 29+ messages in thread

* Re: [PATCH v10 2/3] KVM: s390: guest support for topology function
  2022-06-28  8:59   ` Janis Schoetterl-Glausch
  2022-06-28 10:58     ` Pierre Morel
@ 2022-06-28 10:59     ` Pierre Morel
  1 sibling, 0 replies; 29+ messages in thread
From: Pierre Morel @ 2022-06-28 10:59 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Janis Schoetterl-Glausch, kvm
  Cc: linux-s390, linux-kernel, borntraeger, frankja, cohuck, david,
	thuth, imbrenda, hca, gor, wintera, seiden, nrb



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?

OK, for me, with a good name I can suppress a comment.


-- 
Pierre Morel
IBM Lab Boeblingen

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 29+ messages in thread

* Re: [PATCH v10 2/3] KVM: s390: guest support for topology function
  2022-06-28 10:58     ` Pierre Morel
@ 2022-06-28 12:18       ` Janis Schoetterl-Glausch
  2022-06-28 14:13         ` Pierre Morel
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 29+ messages in thread
From: Janis Schoetterl-Glausch @ 2022-06-28 12:18 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Pierre Morel, kvm
  Cc: linux-s390, linux-kernel, borntraeger, frankja, cohuck, david,
	thuth, imbrenda, hca, gor, wintera, seiden, nrb

On 6/28/22 12:58, Pierre Morel wrote:
> 
> 
> 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.

Not sure I'm understanding you right, you're saying we need both? i.e.:

struct bsca_block *sca;

read_lock(&vcpu->kvm->arch.sca_lock);
sca = kvm->arch.sca;
atomic_or(SCA_UTILITY_MTCR, &sca->utility);
read_unlock(&vcpu->kvm->arch.sca_lock);

Obviously you would need to change the definition of the utility field and could not use a bit field like Janosch
suggested, unless you want to use a cmpxchg loop.
It's a bit ugly that utility is a two byte value.
Maybe there is a nicer way to set that bit, OR (OI, OIY) seem appropriate, but I don't know if they have a nice
abstraction in Linux or if you'd need inline asm.
> 
>>
>>> +    struct bsca_block *sca = kvm->arch.sca; /* SCA version doesn't matter */
>>> +
>>> +    ipte_lock(kvm);
>>> +    sca->utility |= SCA_UTILITY_MTCR;
>>> +    ipte_unlock(kvm);
>>> +}
>>> +
>>
>> [...]
>>
> 


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 29+ messages in thread

* Re: [PATCH v10 2/3] KVM: s390: guest support for topology function
  2022-06-28 12:18       ` Janis Schoetterl-Glausch
@ 2022-06-28 14:13         ` Pierre Morel
  2022-06-28 15:01           ` Janis Schoetterl-Glausch
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 29+ messages in thread
From: Pierre Morel @ 2022-06-28 14:13 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Janis Schoetterl-Glausch, kvm
  Cc: linux-s390, linux-kernel, borntraeger, frankja, cohuck, david,
	thuth, imbrenda, hca, gor, wintera, seiden, nrb



On 6/28/22 14:18, Janis Schoetterl-Glausch wrote:
> On 6/28/22 12:58, Pierre Morel wrote:
>>
>>
>> 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.
> 
> Not sure I'm understanding you right, you're saying we need both? i.e.:
> 
> struct bsca_block *sca;
> 
> read_lock(&vcpu->kvm->arch.sca_lock);
> sca = kvm->arch.sca;
> atomic_or(SCA_UTILITY_MTCR, &sca->utility);
> read_unlock(&vcpu->kvm->arch.sca_lock);
> 
> Obviously you would need to change the definition of the utility field and could not use a bit field like Janosch
> suggested, unless you want to use a cmpxchg loop.
> It's a bit ugly that utility is a two byte value.
> Maybe there is a nicer way to set that bit, OR (OI, OIY) seem appropriate, but I don't know if they have a nice
> abstraction in Linux or if you'd need inline asm.

I was think to something like this because it is what is used most of 
the time when a bit is to be change concurrently with firmware.


+union sca_utility {
+       __u16 val;
+       struct {
+               __u16 mtcr : 1;
+               __u16 reserved : 15;
+       };
+};
+
  struct bsca_block {
         union ipte_control ipte_control;
         __u64   reserved[5];
         __u64   mcn;
-       __u64   reserved2;
+       union sca_utility utility;
+       __u8    reserved2[6];
         struct bsca_entry cpu[KVM_S390_BSCA_CPU_SLOTS];
  }

....

static void kvm_s390_sca_set_mtcr(struct kvm *kvm, int val)
{
         struct bsca_block *sca = kvm->arch.sca;
         union sca_utility new, old;

         read_lock(&kvm->arch.sca_lock);
         do {
                 old = READ_ONCE(sca->utility);
                 new = old;
                 new.mtcr = val ? 1 : 0;
         } while (cmpxchg(&sca->utility.val, old.val, new.val) != old.val);
         read_lock(&kvm->arch.sca_lock);
}

>>
>>>
>>>> +    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

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 29+ messages in thread

* Re: [PATCH v10 2/3] KVM: s390: guest support for topology function
  2022-06-24  6:56   ` Nico Boehr
  2022-06-27 13:16     ` Pierre Morel
@ 2022-06-28 14:38     ` Pierre Morel
  1 sibling, 0 replies; 29+ messages in thread
From: Pierre Morel @ 2022-06-28 14:38 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Nico Boehr, kvm
  Cc: linux-s390, linux-kernel, borntraeger, frankja, cohuck, david,
	thuth, imbrenda, hca, gor, wintera, seiden



On 6/24/22 08:56, Nico Boehr wrote:
> Quoting Pierre Morel (2022-06-20 14:54:36)
> [...]
>> diff --git a/arch/s390/include/asm/kvm_host.h b/arch/s390/include/asm/kvm_host.h
>> index 766028d54a3e..bb54196d4ed6 100644
>> --- a/arch/s390/include/asm/kvm_host.h
>> +++ b/arch/s390/include/asm/kvm_host.h
> [...]
>> @@ -3403,6 +3426,8 @@ int kvm_arch_vcpu_create(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
>>          rc = kvm_s390_vcpu_setup(vcpu);
>>          if (rc)
>>                  goto out_ucontrol_uninit;
>> +
>> +       kvm_s390_sca_set_mtcr(vcpu->kvm);
> 
> We set the MTCR in the vcpu create. Does it also make sense to set it in kvm_arch_vcpu_destroy?
> 
> [...]
>> diff --git a/arch/s390/kvm/priv.c b/arch/s390/kvm/priv.c
>> index 12c464c7cddf..77a692238585 100644
>> --- a/arch/s390/kvm/priv.c
>> +++ b/arch/s390/kvm/priv.c
>> @@ -873,10 +873,13 @@ static int handle_stsi(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
> [...]
>> +       case 15:
>> +               trace_kvm_s390_handle_stsi(vcpu, fc, sel1, sel2, operand2);
>> +               insert_stsi_usr_data(vcpu, operand2, ar, fc, sel1, sel2);
>> +               return -EREMOTE;
> 
> Maybe the API documentation should clearly note that once you turn on KVM_CAP_S390_CPU_TOPOLOGY, you will get exits to userspace for STSI 15.x.y, regardless of whether KVM_CAP_S390_USER_STSI is on or off.

Humm, right, I must change this, it is not right to have STSI(15) but 
not STSI([123])

I will also have two other changes in this patch, the locking and add a 
check for PV on STSI(15)

So I will respin in a short time.


> 
> Other than that, looks good, hence:
> 
> Reviewed-by: Nico Boehr <nrb@linux.ibm.com>
> 

-- 
Pierre Morel
IBM Lab Boeblingen

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 29+ messages in thread

* Re: [PATCH v10 2/3] KVM: s390: guest support for topology function
  2022-06-28 14:13         ` Pierre Morel
@ 2022-06-28 15:01           ` Janis Schoetterl-Glausch
  2022-06-28 15:44             ` Pierre Morel
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 29+ messages in thread
From: Janis Schoetterl-Glausch @ 2022-06-28 15:01 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Pierre Morel, kvm
  Cc: linux-s390, linux-kernel, borntraeger, frankja, cohuck, david,
	thuth, imbrenda, hca, gor, wintera, seiden, nrb

On 6/28/22 16:13, Pierre Morel wrote:
> 
> 
> On 6/28/22 14:18, Janis Schoetterl-Glausch wrote:
>> On 6/28/22 12:58, Pierre Morel wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> 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.
>>
>> Not sure I'm understanding you right, you're saying we need both? i.e.:
>>
>> struct bsca_block *sca;
>>
>> read_lock(&vcpu->kvm->arch.sca_lock);
>> sca = kvm->arch.sca;
>> atomic_or(SCA_UTILITY_MTCR, &sca->utility);
>> read_unlock(&vcpu->kvm->arch.sca_lock);
>>
>> Obviously you would need to change the definition of the utility field and could not use a bit field like Janosch
>> suggested, unless you want to use a cmpxchg loop.
>> It's a bit ugly that utility is a two byte value.
>> Maybe there is a nicer way to set that bit, OR (OI, OIY) seem appropriate, but I don't know if they have a nice
>> abstraction in Linux or if you'd need inline asm.
> 
> I was think to something like this because it is what is used most of the time when a bit is to be change concurrently with firmware.

Ah, ok you want to keep the bitfield. 

[...]
> 
> static void kvm_s390_sca_set_mtcr(struct kvm *kvm, int val)

If you use a bool val you can simply do new.mtcr = val; below.
> {
>         struct bsca_block *sca = kvm->arch.sca;
>         union sca_utility new, old;
> 
>         read_lock(&kvm->arch.sca_lock);

Don't forget to move the sca = kvm->arch.sca; under the lock here.
>         do {
>                 old = READ_ONCE(sca->utility);
>                 new = old;
>                 new.mtcr = val ? 1 : 0;
>         } while (cmpxchg(&sca->utility.val, old.val, new.val) != old.val);
>         read_lock(&kvm->arch.sca_lock);
> }
> 
>>>
>>>>
>>>>> +    struct bsca_block *sca = kvm->arch.sca; /* SCA version doesn't matter */
>>>>> +
>>>>> +    ipte_lock(kvm);
>>>>> +    sca->utility |= SCA_UTILITY_MTCR;
>>>>> +    ipte_unlock(kvm);
>>>>> +}
>>>>> +
>>>>
>>>> [...]
>>>>
>>>
>>
> 


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 29+ messages in thread

* Re: [PATCH v10 2/3] KVM: s390: guest support for topology function
  2022-06-28 15:01           ` Janis Schoetterl-Glausch
@ 2022-06-28 15:44             ` Pierre Morel
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 29+ messages in thread
From: Pierre Morel @ 2022-06-28 15:44 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Janis Schoetterl-Glausch, kvm
  Cc: linux-s390, linux-kernel, borntraeger, frankja, cohuck, david,
	thuth, imbrenda, hca, gor, wintera, seiden, nrb



On 6/28/22 17:01, Janis Schoetterl-Glausch wrote:
> On 6/28/22 16:13, Pierre Morel wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 6/28/22 14:18, Janis Schoetterl-Glausch wrote:
>>> On 6/28/22 12:58, Pierre Morel wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 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.
>>>
>>> Not sure I'm understanding you right, you're saying we need both? i.e.:
>>>
>>> struct bsca_block *sca;
>>>
>>> read_lock(&vcpu->kvm->arch.sca_lock);
>>> sca = kvm->arch.sca;
>>> atomic_or(SCA_UTILITY_MTCR, &sca->utility);
>>> read_unlock(&vcpu->kvm->arch.sca_lock);
>>>
>>> Obviously you would need to change the definition of the utility field and could not use a bit field like Janosch
>>> suggested, unless you want to use a cmpxchg loop.
>>> It's a bit ugly that utility is a two byte value.
>>> Maybe there is a nicer way to set that bit, OR (OI, OIY) seem appropriate, but I don't know if they have a nice
>>> abstraction in Linux or if you'd need inline asm.
>>
>> I was think to something like this because it is what is used most of the time when a bit is to be change concurrently with firmware.
> 
> Ah, ok you want to keep the bitfield.
> 
> [...]
>>
>> static void kvm_s390_sca_set_mtcr(struct kvm *kvm, int val)
> 
> If you use a bool val you can simply do new.mtcr = val; below.
>> {
>>          struct bsca_block *sca = kvm->arch.sca;
>>          union sca_utility new, old;
>>
>>          read_lock(&kvm->arch.sca_lock);
> 
> Don't forget to move the sca = kvm->arch.sca; under the lock here.
>>          do {
>>                  old = READ_ONCE(sca->utility);
>>                  new = old;
>>                  new.mtcr = val ? 1 : 0;
>>          } while (cmpxchg(&sca->utility.val, old.val, new.val) != old.val);
>>          read_lock(&kvm->arch.sca_lock);
>> }

right, thanks, and to unlock at the end :)

>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> +    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

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 29+ messages in thread

* Re: [PATCH v10 3/3] KVM: s390: resetting the Topology-Change-Report
  2022-06-20 12:54 ` [PATCH v10 3/3] KVM: s390: resetting the Topology-Change-Report Pierre Morel
  2022-06-24  6:50   ` Janosch Frank
@ 2022-06-28 16:41   ` Janis Schoetterl-Glausch
  2022-06-28 17:27     ` Pierre Morel
  1 sibling, 1 reply; 29+ messages in thread
From: Janis Schoetterl-Glausch @ 2022-06-28 16:41 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Pierre Morel, kvm
  Cc: linux-s390, linux-kernel, borntraeger, frankja, cohuck, david,
	thuth, imbrenda, hca, gor, wintera, seiden, nrb

On 6/20/22 14:54, Pierre Morel wrote:
> During a subsystem reset the Topology-Change-Report is cleared.
> Let's give userland the possibility to clear the MTCR in the case
> of a subsystem reset.
> 
> To migrate the MTCR, we give userland the possibility to
> query the MTCR state.
> 
> We indicate KVM support for the CPU topology facility with a new
> KVM capability: KVM_CAP_S390_CPU_TOPOLOGY.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Pierre Morel <pmorel@linux.ibm.com>
> ---
>  Documentation/virt/kvm/api.rst   | 31 +++++++++++
>  arch/s390/include/uapi/asm/kvm.h | 10 ++++
>  arch/s390/kvm/kvm-s390.c         | 96 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>  include/uapi/linux/kvm.h         |  1 +
>  4 files changed, 138 insertions(+)
> 
> diff --git a/Documentation/virt/kvm/api.rst b/Documentation/virt/kvm/api.rst
> index 11e00a46c610..326f8b7e7671 100644
> --- a/Documentation/virt/kvm/api.rst
> +++ b/Documentation/virt/kvm/api.rst
> @@ -7956,6 +7956,37 @@ should adjust CPUID leaf 0xA to reflect that the PMU is disabled.
>  When enabled, KVM will exit to userspace with KVM_EXIT_SYSTEM_EVENT of
>  type KVM_SYSTEM_EVENT_SUSPEND to process the guest suspend request.
> 
> +8.37 KVM_CAP_S390_CPU_TOPOLOGY
> +------------------------------
> +
> +:Capability: KVM_CAP_S390_CPU_TOPOLOGY
> +:Architectures: s390
> +:Type: vm
> +
> +This capability indicates that KVM will provide the S390 CPU Topology
> +facility which consist of the interpretation of the PTF instruction for
> +the Function Code 2 along with interception and forwarding of both the
> +PTF instruction with Function Codes 0 or 1 and the STSI(15,1,x)
> +instruction to the userland hypervisor.

The way the code is written, STSI 15.x.x is forwarded to user space,
might actually make sense to future proof the code by restricting that
to 15.1.2-6 in priv.c.
> +
> +The stfle facility 11, CPU Topology facility, should not be provided
> +to the guest without this capability.
> +
> +When this capability is present, KVM provides a new attribute group
> +on vm fd, KVM_S390_VM_CPU_TOPOLOGY.
> +This new attribute allows to get, set or clear the Modified Change
> +Topology Report (MTCR) bit of the SCA through the kvm_device_attr
> +structure.
> +
> +Getting the MTCR bit is realized by using a kvm_device_attr attr
> +entry value of KVM_GET_DEVICE_ATTR and with kvm_device_attr addr
> +entry pointing to the address of a struct kvm_cpu_topology.
> +The value of the MTCR is return by the bit mtcr of the structure.
> +
> +When using KVM_SET_DEVICE_ATTR the MTCR is set by using the
> +attr->attr value KVM_S390_VM_CPU_TOPO_MTCR_SET and cleared by
> +using KVM_S390_VM_CPU_TOPO_MTCR_CLEAR.
> +
>  9. Known KVM API problems
>  =========================
> 
> diff --git a/arch/s390/include/uapi/asm/kvm.h b/arch/s390/include/uapi/asm/kvm.h
> index 7a6b14874d65..df5e8279ffd0 100644
> --- a/arch/s390/include/uapi/asm/kvm.h
> +++ b/arch/s390/include/uapi/asm/kvm.h
> @@ -74,6 +74,7 @@ struct kvm_s390_io_adapter_req {
>  #define KVM_S390_VM_CRYPTO		2
>  #define KVM_S390_VM_CPU_MODEL		3
>  #define KVM_S390_VM_MIGRATION		4
> +#define KVM_S390_VM_CPU_TOPOLOGY	5
> 
>  /* kvm attributes for mem_ctrl */
>  #define KVM_S390_VM_MEM_ENABLE_CMMA	0
> @@ -171,6 +172,15 @@ struct kvm_s390_vm_cpu_subfunc {
>  #define KVM_S390_VM_MIGRATION_START	1
>  #define KVM_S390_VM_MIGRATION_STATUS	2
> 
> +/* kvm attributes for cpu topology */
> +#define KVM_S390_VM_CPU_TOPO_MTCR_CLEAR	0
> +#define KVM_S390_VM_CPU_TOPO_MTCR_SET	1

Are you going to transition to a set-value-provided-by-user API with the next series?
I don't particularly like that MTCR is user visible, it's kind of an implementation detail.

> +
> +struct kvm_cpu_topology {
> +	__u16 mtcr : 1;

So I'd give this a more descriptive name, report_topology_change/topo_change_report_pending ?

> +	__u16 reserved : 15;

Are these bits for future proofing? If so a few more would do no harm IMO.
> +};

The use of a bit field in uapi surprised my, but I guess it's fine and kvm_sync_regs has them too.
> +
>  /* for KVM_GET_REGS and KVM_SET_REGS */
>  struct kvm_regs {
>  	/* general purpose regs for s390 */
> diff --git a/arch/s390/kvm/kvm-s390.c b/arch/s390/kvm/kvm-s390.c
> index 95b96019ca8e..ae39041bb149 100644
> --- a/arch/s390/kvm/kvm-s390.c
> +++ b/arch/s390/kvm/kvm-s390.c
> @@ -606,6 +606,9 @@ int kvm_vm_ioctl_check_extension(struct kvm *kvm, long ext)
>  	case KVM_CAP_S390_PROTECTED:
>  		r = is_prot_virt_host();
>  		break;
> +	case KVM_CAP_S390_CPU_TOPOLOGY:
> +		r = test_facility(11);
> +		break;
>  	default:
>  		r = 0;
>  	}
> @@ -817,6 +820,20 @@ int kvm_vm_ioctl_enable_cap(struct kvm *kvm, struct kvm_enable_cap *cap)
>  		icpt_operexc_on_all_vcpus(kvm);
>  		r = 0;
>  		break;
> +	case KVM_CAP_S390_CPU_TOPOLOGY:
> +		r = -EINVAL;
> +		mutex_lock(&kvm->lock);
> +		if (kvm->created_vcpus) {
> +			r = -EBUSY;
> +		} else if (test_facility(11)) {
> +			set_kvm_facility(kvm->arch.model.fac_mask, 11);
> +			set_kvm_facility(kvm->arch.model.fac_list, 11);
> +			r = 0;
> +		}
> +		mutex_unlock(&kvm->lock);
> +		VM_EVENT(kvm, 3, "ENABLE: CPU TOPOLOGY %s",

Most of the other cases spell out the cap, so it'd be "ENABLE: CAP_S390_CPU_TOPOLOGY %s".

> +			 r ? "(not available)" : "(success)");
> +		break;
>  	default:
>  		r = -EINVAL;
>  		break;
> @@ -1710,6 +1727,76 @@ static void kvm_s390_sca_set_mtcr(struct kvm *kvm)
>  	ipte_unlock(kvm);
>  }
> 

Some brainstorming function names:

kvm_s390_get_topo_change_report
kvm_s390_(un|re)set_topo_change_report
kvm_s390_(publish|revoke|unpublish)_topo_change_report
kvm_s390_(report|signal|revoke)_topology_change

[...]


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 29+ messages in thread

* Re: [PATCH v10 3/3] KVM: s390: resetting the Topology-Change-Report
  2022-06-28 16:41   ` Janis Schoetterl-Glausch
@ 2022-06-28 17:27     ` Pierre Morel
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 29+ messages in thread
From: Pierre Morel @ 2022-06-28 17:27 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Janis Schoetterl-Glausch, kvm
  Cc: linux-s390, linux-kernel, borntraeger, frankja, cohuck, david,
	thuth, imbrenda, hca, gor, wintera, seiden, nrb



On 6/28/22 18:41, Janis Schoetterl-Glausch wrote:
> On 6/20/22 14:54, Pierre Morel wrote:
>> During a subsystem reset the Topology-Change-Report is cleared.
>> Let's give userland the possibility to clear the MTCR in the case
>> of a subsystem reset.
>>
>> To migrate the MTCR, we give userland the possibility to
>> query the MTCR state.
>>
>> We indicate KVM support for the CPU topology facility with a new
>> KVM capability: KVM_CAP_S390_CPU_TOPOLOGY.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Pierre Morel <pmorel@linux.ibm.com>
>> ---
>>   Documentation/virt/kvm/api.rst   | 31 +++++++++++
>>   arch/s390/include/uapi/asm/kvm.h | 10 ++++
>>   arch/s390/kvm/kvm-s390.c         | 96 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>   include/uapi/linux/kvm.h         |  1 +
>>   4 files changed, 138 insertions(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/Documentation/virt/kvm/api.rst b/Documentation/virt/kvm/api.rst
>> index 11e00a46c610..326f8b7e7671 100644
>> --- a/Documentation/virt/kvm/api.rst
>> +++ b/Documentation/virt/kvm/api.rst
>> @@ -7956,6 +7956,37 @@ should adjust CPUID leaf 0xA to reflect that the PMU is disabled.
>>   When enabled, KVM will exit to userspace with KVM_EXIT_SYSTEM_EVENT of
>>   type KVM_SYSTEM_EVENT_SUSPEND to process the guest suspend request.
>>
>> +8.37 KVM_CAP_S390_CPU_TOPOLOGY
>> +------------------------------
>> +
>> +:Capability: KVM_CAP_S390_CPU_TOPOLOGY
>> +:Architectures: s390
>> +:Type: vm
>> +
>> +This capability indicates that KVM will provide the S390 CPU Topology
>> +facility which consist of the interpretation of the PTF instruction for
>> +the Function Code 2 along with interception and forwarding of both the
>> +PTF instruction with Function Codes 0 or 1 and the STSI(15,1,x)
>> +instruction to the userland hypervisor.
> 
> The way the code is written, STSI 15.x.x is forwarded to user space,
> might actually make sense to future proof the code by restricting that
> to 15.1.2-6 in priv.c.
>> +
>> +The stfle facility 11, CPU Topology facility, should not be provided
>> +to the guest without this capability.
>> +
>> +When this capability is present, KVM provides a new attribute group
>> +on vm fd, KVM_S390_VM_CPU_TOPOLOGY.
>> +This new attribute allows to get, set or clear the Modified Change
>> +Topology Report (MTCR) bit of the SCA through the kvm_device_attr
>> +structure.
>> +
>> +Getting the MTCR bit is realized by using a kvm_device_attr attr
>> +entry value of KVM_GET_DEVICE_ATTR and with kvm_device_attr addr
>> +entry pointing to the address of a struct kvm_cpu_topology.
>> +The value of the MTCR is return by the bit mtcr of the structure.
>> +
>> +When using KVM_SET_DEVICE_ATTR the MTCR is set by using the
>> +attr->attr value KVM_S390_VM_CPU_TOPO_MTCR_SET and cleared by
>> +using KVM_S390_VM_CPU_TOPO_MTCR_CLEAR.
>> +
>>   9. Known KVM API problems
>>   =========================
>>
>> diff --git a/arch/s390/include/uapi/asm/kvm.h b/arch/s390/include/uapi/asm/kvm.h
>> index 7a6b14874d65..df5e8279ffd0 100644
>> --- a/arch/s390/include/uapi/asm/kvm.h
>> +++ b/arch/s390/include/uapi/asm/kvm.h
>> @@ -74,6 +74,7 @@ struct kvm_s390_io_adapter_req {
>>   #define KVM_S390_VM_CRYPTO		2
>>   #define KVM_S390_VM_CPU_MODEL		3
>>   #define KVM_S390_VM_MIGRATION		4
>> +#define KVM_S390_VM_CPU_TOPOLOGY	5
>>
>>   /* kvm attributes for mem_ctrl */
>>   #define KVM_S390_VM_MEM_ENABLE_CMMA	0
>> @@ -171,6 +172,15 @@ struct kvm_s390_vm_cpu_subfunc {
>>   #define KVM_S390_VM_MIGRATION_START	1
>>   #define KVM_S390_VM_MIGRATION_STATUS	2
>>
>> +/* kvm attributes for cpu topology */
>> +#define KVM_S390_VM_CPU_TOPO_MTCR_CLEAR	0
>> +#define KVM_S390_VM_CPU_TOPO_MTCR_SET	1
> 
> Are you going to transition to a set-value-provided-by-user API with the next series?
> I don't particularly like that MTCR is user visible, it's kind of an implementation detail.

It is not the same structure as the hardware structure.
Even it looks like it.

I am OK to use something else, like a u8
in that case I need to say userland that the size of the data returned 
by get KVM_S390_VM_CPU_TOPOLOGY is u8.

I find this is a lack in the definition of the kvm_device_attr, it 
should have a size entry.

All other user of kvm_device_attr have structures and it is easy to the 
userland to get the size using the sizeof(struct...) one can say that 
userland knows that the parameter for topology is a u8 but that hurt me 
somehow.
May be it is stupid, for the other calls the user has to know the name 
of the structure anyway.

Then we can say the value of u8 bit 1 is the value of the mtcr.
OK for me.

What do you think?

> 
>> +
>> +struct kvm_cpu_topology {
>> +	__u16 mtcr : 1;
> 
> So I'd give this a more descriptive name, report_topology_change/topo_change_report_pending ?
> 
>> +	__u16 reserved : 15;
> 
> Are these bits for future proofing? If so a few more would do no harm IMO.
>> +};
> 
> The use of a bit field in uapi surprised my, but I guess it's fine and kvm_sync_regs has them too.
>> +
>>   /* for KVM_GET_REGS and KVM_SET_REGS */
>>   struct kvm_regs {
>>   	/* general purpose regs for s390 */
>> diff --git a/arch/s390/kvm/kvm-s390.c b/arch/s390/kvm/kvm-s390.c
>> index 95b96019ca8e..ae39041bb149 100644
>> --- a/arch/s390/kvm/kvm-s390.c
>> +++ b/arch/s390/kvm/kvm-s390.c
>> @@ -606,6 +606,9 @@ int kvm_vm_ioctl_check_extension(struct kvm *kvm, long ext)
>>   	case KVM_CAP_S390_PROTECTED:
>>   		r = is_prot_virt_host();
>>   		break;
>> +	case KVM_CAP_S390_CPU_TOPOLOGY:
>> +		r = test_facility(11);
>> +		break;
>>   	default:
>>   		r = 0;
>>   	}
>> @@ -817,6 +820,20 @@ int kvm_vm_ioctl_enable_cap(struct kvm *kvm, struct kvm_enable_cap *cap)
>>   		icpt_operexc_on_all_vcpus(kvm);
>>   		r = 0;
>>   		break;
>> +	case KVM_CAP_S390_CPU_TOPOLOGY:
>> +		r = -EINVAL;
>> +		mutex_lock(&kvm->lock);
>> +		if (kvm->created_vcpus) {
>> +			r = -EBUSY;
>> +		} else if (test_facility(11)) {
>> +			set_kvm_facility(kvm->arch.model.fac_mask, 11);
>> +			set_kvm_facility(kvm->arch.model.fac_list, 11);
>> +			r = 0;
>> +		}
>> +		mutex_unlock(&kvm->lock);
>> +		VM_EVENT(kvm, 3, "ENABLE: CPU TOPOLOGY %s",
> 
> Most of the other cases spell out the cap, so it'd be "ENABLE: CAP_S390_CPU_TOPOLOGY %s".

OK

> 
>> +			 r ? "(not available)" : "(success)");
>> +		break;
>>   	default:
>>   		r = -EINVAL;
>>   		break;
>> @@ -1710,6 +1727,76 @@ static void kvm_s390_sca_set_mtcr(struct kvm *kvm)
>>   	ipte_unlock(kvm);
>>   }
>>
> 
> Some brainstorming function names:
> 
> kvm_s390_get_topo_change_report
> kvm_s390_(un|re)set_topo_change_report
> kvm_s390_(publish|revoke|unpublish)_topo_change_report
> kvm_s390_(report|signal|revoke)_topology_change

kvm_s390_update_topology_change_report ?

> 
> [...]
> 

-- 
Pierre Morel
IBM Lab Boeblingen

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 29+ messages in thread

end of thread, other threads:[~2022-06-28 17:23 UTC | newest]

Thread overview: 29+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2022-06-20 12:54 [PATCH v10 0/3] s390x: KVM: CPU Topology Pierre Morel
2022-06-20 12:54 ` [PATCH v10 1/3] KVM: s390: ipte lock for SCA access should be contained in KVM Pierre Morel
2022-06-24  5:47   ` Janosch Frank
2022-06-27 13:29     ` Pierre Morel
2022-06-24  6:57   ` Nico Boehr
2022-06-27 13:28     ` Pierre Morel
2022-06-24  9:22   ` Claudio Imbrenda
2022-06-20 12:54 ` [PATCH v10 2/3] KVM: s390: guest support for topology function Pierre Morel
2022-06-24  6:22   ` Janosch Frank
2022-06-27 13:30     ` Pierre Morel
2022-06-24  6:56   ` Nico Boehr
2022-06-27 13:16     ` Pierre Morel
2022-06-28 14:38     ` Pierre Morel
2022-06-24  9:32   ` Claudio Imbrenda
2022-06-27 17:40     ` Pierre Morel
2022-06-24 15:09   ` Janis Schoetterl-Glausch
2022-06-27 14:36     ` Pierre Morel
2022-06-28  8:59   ` Janis Schoetterl-Glausch
2022-06-28 10:58     ` Pierre Morel
2022-06-28 12:18       ` Janis Schoetterl-Glausch
2022-06-28 14:13         ` Pierre Morel
2022-06-28 15:01           ` Janis Schoetterl-Glausch
2022-06-28 15:44             ` Pierre Morel
2022-06-28 10:59     ` Pierre Morel
2022-06-20 12:54 ` [PATCH v10 3/3] KVM: s390: resetting the Topology-Change-Report Pierre Morel
2022-06-24  6:50   ` Janosch Frank
2022-06-27 13:34     ` Pierre Morel
2022-06-28 16:41   ` Janis Schoetterl-Glausch
2022-06-28 17:27     ` Pierre Morel

This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.