From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5C869C76195 for ; Tue, 28 Mar 2023 06:26:49 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S232717AbjC1G0s (ORCPT ); Tue, 28 Mar 2023 02:26:48 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:44738 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S232401AbjC1G0S (ORCPT ); Tue, 28 Mar 2023 02:26:18 -0400 Received: from mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com [148.163.156.1]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5DF4135BF; Mon, 27 Mar 2023 23:25:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: from pps.filterd (m0187473.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (8.17.1.19/8.17.1.19) with ESMTP id 32S4Itxq024766; Tue, 28 Mar 2023 06:25:24 GMT DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=ibm.com; h=content-type : mime-version : content-transfer-encoding : in-reply-to : references : cc : to : from : subject : message-id : date; s=pp1; bh=SXQto6sc/s5yqYSgq+aOTCmeRorwTBuWFiZZTvwnrTI=; b=iFpUBw8/UPtOGqnEkruBOGbR5NP3rXeGvsEGXPyERRtj5XzSGuoRdGII0Df+mYjzH1fd UiI4VIYVpMJ5Ov9ce9qnP8iCas0JRHFaeQGoF96avSv7EO9fn6ln6+hqthUmWJXyR5IM LYmI9x5jA7DpuMcnf6g1rLa/btEeUI1jfU3E24qisotTTTl8bhR+2QFBD8CRNjqE2TNC 5r29UdA0t8RTAcSTedC+7nd/xqyNfgZ87THrrbaQfnr+5iWg0t9oVEyhahtdBCoALqqz pF5cxXMgYx+OAW8wJCBrlzeSjDb4vC8yJl81FcUVboeVD0/HE73xzC/Zl2xSPjZaT/aG rA== Received: from pps.reinject (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (PPS) with ESMTPS id 3pks3tah68-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Tue, 28 Mar 2023 06:25:23 +0000 Received: from m0187473.ppops.net (m0187473.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by pps.reinject (8.17.1.5/8.17.1.5) with ESMTP id 32S6D5pS012675; Tue, 28 Mar 2023 06:25:23 GMT Received: from ppma04fra.de.ibm.com (6a.4a.5195.ip4.static.sl-reverse.com [149.81.74.106]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (PPS) with ESMTPS id 3pks3tah59-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Tue, 28 Mar 2023 06:25:23 +0000 Received: from pps.filterd (ppma04fra.de.ibm.com [127.0.0.1]) by ppma04fra.de.ibm.com (8.17.1.19/8.17.1.19) with ESMTP id 32RKC4D8004114; Tue, 28 Mar 2023 06:25:20 GMT Received: from smtprelay05.fra02v.mail.ibm.com ([9.218.2.225]) by ppma04fra.de.ibm.com (PPS) with ESMTPS id 3phrk6b43g-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Tue, 28 Mar 2023 06:25:20 +0000 Received: from smtpav03.fra02v.mail.ibm.com (smtpav03.fra02v.mail.ibm.com [10.20.54.102]) by smtprelay05.fra02v.mail.ibm.com (8.14.9/8.14.9/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id 32S6PHk367043804 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK); Tue, 28 Mar 2023 06:25:17 GMT Received: from smtpav03.fra02v.mail.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 000822004E; Tue, 28 Mar 2023 06:25:16 +0000 (GMT) Received: from smtpav03.fra02v.mail.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id CD6E920043; Tue, 28 Mar 2023 06:25:16 +0000 (GMT) Received: from t14-nrb (unknown [9.179.2.12]) by smtpav03.fra02v.mail.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP; Tue, 28 Mar 2023 06:25:16 +0000 (GMT) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable In-Reply-To: References: <20230320085642.12251-1-pmorel@linux.ibm.com> <20230320085642.12251-3-pmorel@linux.ibm.com> <167965555147.41638.10047922188597254104@t14-nrb> Cc: frankja@linux.ibm.com, thuth@redhat.com, kvm@vger.kernel.org, imbrenda@linux.ibm.com, david@redhat.com, nsg@linux.ibm.com To: Pierre Morel , linux-s390@vger.kernel.org From: Nico Boehr Subject: Re: [kvm-unit-tests PATCH v7 2/2] s390x: topology: Checking Configuration Topology Information Message-ID: <167998471655.28355.8845167343467425829@t14-nrb> User-Agent: alot/0.8.1 Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2023 08:25:16 +0200 X-TM-AS-GCONF: 00 X-Proofpoint-GUID: pW4IHJ1kwnRftD7saSIit98-bSsm2FQc X-Proofpoint-ORIG-GUID: VcS6eiAGiTeIVDfhe0NvfJgCgodxDQom X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=baseguard engine=ICAP:2.0.254,Aquarius:18.0.942,Hydra:6.0.573,FMLib:17.11.170.22 definitions=2023-03-24_11,2023-03-27_02,2023-02-09_01 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_notspam policy=outbound score=0 phishscore=0 clxscore=1015 priorityscore=1501 malwarescore=0 mlxlogscore=999 bulkscore=0 adultscore=0 suspectscore=0 spamscore=0 lowpriorityscore=0 mlxscore=0 impostorscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.12.0-2303200000 definitions=main-2303280049 Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: kvm@vger.kernel.org Quoting Pierre Morel (2023-03-27 14:38:35) > > [...] > >> diff --git a/s390x/topology.c b/s390x/topology.c > >> index ce248f1..11ce931 100644 > >> --- a/s390x/topology.c > >> +++ b/s390x/topology.c > > [...] > >> +/* > >> + * Topology level as defined by architecture, all levels exists with > >> + * a single container unless overwritten by the QEMU -smp parameter. > >> + */ > >> +static int arch_topo_lvl[CPU_TOPOLOGY_MAX_LEVEL]; // =3D {1, 1, 1, 1,= 1, 1}; > > So that's what is being provided to the test on the command line, right? > > > > How about renaming this to expected_topo_lvl? > > > > What do you mean by 'defined by architecture'? >=20 > This is what is provided by the boot arguments and should correspond to=20 > the physical topology. >=20 > The test checks that this is corresponding to what LPAR or QEMU shows in = > the SYSIB. Yep, OK. Makes sense. > If a topology level always exist physically and if it is not specified=20 > on the QEMU command line it is implicitly unique. What do you mean by 'implicitly unique'? > OK for expected_topo_lvl if you prefer. Yes, please. > > [...] > >> +/* > >> + * stsi_check_mag > >> + * @info: Pointer to the stsi information > >> + * > >> + * MAG field should match the architecture defined containers > >> + * when MNEST as returned by SCLP matches MNEST of the SYSIB. > >> + */ > >> +static void stsi_check_mag(struct sysinfo_15_1_x *info) > >> +{ > >> + int i; > >> + > >> + report_prefix_push("MAG"); > >> + > >> + stsi_check_maxcpus(info); > >> + > >> + /* Explicitly skip the test if both mnest do not match */ > >> + if (max_nested_lvl !=3D info->mnest) > >> + goto done; > > What does it mean if the two don't match, i.e. is this an error? Or a s= kip? Or is it just expected? >=20 > I have no information on the representation of the MAG fields for a=20 > SYSIB with a nested level different than the maximum nested level. >=20 > There are examples in the documentation but I did not find, and did not=20 > get a clear answer, on how the MAG field are calculated. >=20 > The examples seems clear for info->mnest between MNEST -1 and 3 but the=20 > explication I had on info->mnest =3D 2 is not to be found in any=20 > documentation. >=20 > Until it is specified in a documentation I skip all these tests. Alright - then please: - update the comment to say: "It is not clear how the MAG fields are calculated when mnest in the SYSI= B 15.x is different from the maximum nested level in the SCLP info, so we s= kip here for now." - when this is the case, do a report_skip() and show info->mnest and max_ne= sted_lvl in the message.