[kvm-unit-tests PATCH v8 0/2] S390x: CPU Topology Information

[kvm-unit-tests PATCH v8 0/2] S390x: CPU Topology Information

[Pierre Morel]

Hi,

new version of the kvm-unit-test s390x CPU topology series.

0. what is new in this new spin
-------------------------------

- Checking different entitlement for vertical polarization

1. what is done
---------------

- First part is checking PTF errors, for KVM and LPAR

- Second part is checking PTF polarization change and STSI
  with the cpu topology including drawers and books.
  This tests are run for KVM only.

To run these tests under KVM successfully you need Linux 6.0
and the latest QEMU patches you find at:

https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel/2023-04/msg04568.html

Note that Fedora-35 already has the CPU Topology backport for Linux.

To start the test in KVM just do:

# ./run_tests.sh topology

or something like:

# ./s390x-run s390x/topology.elf \
	-smp 5,drawers=3,books=3,sockets=4,cores=4,maxcpus=144 \
	-append '-drawers 3 -books 3 -sockets 4 -cores 4'

Of course the declaration of the number of drawers, books, socket and
core must be coherent between -smp and -append arguments.

- Running the test on LPAR has been getestet on a46lp21

Regards,
Pierre

Pierre Morel (2):
  s390x: topology: Check the Perform Topology Function
  s390x: topology: Checking Configuration Topology Information

 lib/s390x/sclp.c    |   6 +
 lib/s390x/sclp.h    |   4 +-
 lib/s390x/stsi.h    |  36 ++++
 s390x/Makefile      |   1 +
 s390x/topology.c    | 516 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
 s390x/unittests.cfg |   6 +
 6 files changed, 568 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
 create mode 100644 s390x/topology.c

-- 
2.31.1

new in v8:

- define PTF_INVALID_FUNCTION
  (Claudio)

- test every single bits for specification in the ptf instruction
  (Claudio)

- test vertical polarization twice
  (Claudio)

- add an assert(read_info)
  (Nico)

- changed skips
  (Nico)


new in v7:

- better checks using device attributes on commandline
  (Pierre)
- use builtin to get the number of CPU in the TLE mask
  (Thomas)
- use Elvis (not dead)
  (Thomas)
- reset before tests
  (Nina)
- splitting test_ptf in small functions
  (Thomas)
- check every ptf function code for program check
  (Nina)
- Test made on LPAR
  (Janosch)
- use a single page for SYSIB
  (Thomas)
- abort on wrong parameter
  (Thomas)
- implement SYSIB check with a recursive funtion
  (Nina)
- diverse little changes (naming, clearer checks
  (Nina, Thomas)

[kvm-unit-tests PATCH v8 1/2] s390x: topology: Check the Perform Topology Function

[Pierre Morel]

We check that the PTF instruction is working correctly when
the cpu topology facility is available.

For KVM only, we test changing of the polarity between horizontal
and vertical and that a reset set the horizontal polarity.

Signed-off-by: Pierre Morel <pmorel@linux.ibm.com>
---
 s390x/Makefile      |   1 +
 s390x/topology.c    | 191 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
 s390x/unittests.cfg |   3 +
 3 files changed, 195 insertions(+)
 create mode 100644 s390x/topology.c

diff --git a/s390x/Makefile b/s390x/Makefile
index a80db53..fe77b07 100644
--- a/s390x/Makefile
+++ b/s390x/Makefile
@@ -40,6 +40,7 @@ tests += $(TEST_DIR)/panic-loop-pgm.elf
 tests += $(TEST_DIR)/migration-sck.elf
 tests += $(TEST_DIR)/exittime.elf
 tests += $(TEST_DIR)/ex.elf
+tests += $(TEST_DIR)/topology.elf
 
 pv-tests += $(TEST_DIR)/pv-diags.elf
 
diff --git a/s390x/topology.c b/s390x/topology.c
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..07f1650
--- /dev/null
+++ b/s390x/topology.c
@@ -0,0 +1,191 @@
+/* SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0-only */
+/*
+ * CPU Topology
+ *
+ * Copyright IBM Corp. 2022
+ *
+ * Authors:
+ *  Pierre Morel <pmorel@linux.ibm.com>
+ */
+
+#include <libcflat.h>
+#include <asm/page.h>
+#include <asm/asm-offsets.h>
+#include <asm/interrupt.h>
+#include <asm/facility.h>
+#include <asm/barrier.h>
+#include <smp.h>
+#include <sclp.h>
+#include <s390x/hardware.h>
+
+#define PTF_REQ_HORIZONTAL	0
+#define PTF_REQ_VERTICAL	1
+#define PTF_CHECK		2
+#define PTF_INVALID_FUNCTION	0xff
+
+#define PTF_ERR_NO_REASON	0
+#define PTF_ERR_ALRDY_POLARIZED	1
+#define PTF_ERR_IN_PROGRESS	2
+
+extern int diag308_load_reset(u64);
+
+static int ptf(unsigned long fc, unsigned long *rc)
+{
+	int cc;
+
+	asm volatile(
+		"	ptf	%1	\n"
+		"       ipm     %0	\n"
+		"       srl     %0,28	\n"
+		: "=d" (cc), "+d" (fc)
+		:
+		: "cc");
+
+	*rc = fc >> 8;
+	return cc;
+}
+
+static void check_privilege(int fc)
+{
+	unsigned long rc;
+
+	report_prefix_push("Privilege");
+	report_info("function code %d", fc);
+	enter_pstate();
+	expect_pgm_int();
+	ptf(fc, &rc);
+	check_pgm_int_code(PGM_INT_CODE_PRIVILEGED_OPERATION);
+	report_prefix_pop();
+}
+
+static void check_specifications(void)
+{
+	unsigned long wrong_bits = 0;
+	unsigned long ptf_bits;
+	unsigned long rc;
+	int i;
+
+	report_prefix_push("Specifications");
+
+	/* Function codes above 3 are undefined */
+	for (i = 4; i < 255; i++) {
+		expect_pgm_int();
+		ptf(i, &rc);
+		mb();
+		if (lowcore.pgm_int_code != PGM_INT_CODE_SPECIFICATION) {
+			report_info("Undefined %d", i);
+			wrong_bits = 1;
+		}
+	}
+
+	report(!wrong_bits, "Undefined function codes");
+
+	/* Reserved bits must be 0 */
+	for (i = 8, wrong_bits = 0; i < 64; i++) {
+		ptf_bits = 0x01UL << i;
+		expect_pgm_int();
+		ptf(ptf_bits, &rc);
+		mb();
+		if (lowcore.pgm_int_code != PGM_INT_CODE_SPECIFICATION)
+			wrong_bits |= ptf_bits;
+	}
+
+	report(!wrong_bits, "Reserved bits: 0x%016lx", wrong_bits);
+
+	report_prefix_pop();
+}
+
+static void check_polarization_change(void)
+{
+	unsigned long rc;
+	int cc;
+
+	report_prefix_push("Polarization change");
+
+	/* We expect a clean state through reset */
+	report(diag308_load_reset(1), "load normal reset done");
+
+	/*
+	 * Set vertical polarization to verify that RESET sets
+	 * horizontal polarization back.
+	 */
+	cc = ptf(PTF_REQ_VERTICAL, &rc);
+	report(cc == 0, "Set vertical polarization.");
+
+	report(diag308_load_reset(1), "load normal reset done");
+
+	cc = ptf(PTF_CHECK, &rc);
+	report(cc == 0, "Reset should clear topology report");
+
+	cc = ptf(PTF_REQ_HORIZONTAL, &rc);
+	report(cc == 2 && rc == PTF_ERR_ALRDY_POLARIZED,
+	       "After RESET polarization is horizontal");
+
+	/* Flip between vertical and horizontal polarization */
+	cc = ptf(PTF_REQ_VERTICAL, &rc);
+	report(cc == 0, "Change to vertical");
+
+	cc = ptf(PTF_CHECK, &rc);
+	report(cc == 1, "Should report");
+
+	cc = ptf(PTF_REQ_VERTICAL, &rc);
+	report(cc == 2 && rc == PTF_ERR_ALRDY_POLARIZED, "Double change to vertical");
+
+	cc = ptf(PTF_CHECK, &rc);
+	report(cc == 0, "Should not report");
+
+	cc = ptf(PTF_REQ_HORIZONTAL, &rc);
+	report(cc == 0, "Change to horizontal");
+
+	cc = ptf(PTF_CHECK, &rc);
+	report(cc == 1, "Should Report");
+
+	cc = ptf(PTF_REQ_HORIZONTAL, &rc);
+	report(cc == 2 && rc == PTF_ERR_ALRDY_POLARIZED, "Double change to horizontal");
+
+	cc = ptf(PTF_CHECK, &rc);
+	report(cc == 0, "Should not report");
+
+	report_prefix_pop();
+}
+
+static void test_ptf(void)
+{
+	check_privilege(PTF_REQ_HORIZONTAL);
+	check_privilege(PTF_REQ_VERTICAL);
+	check_privilege(PTF_CHECK);
+	check_specifications();
+	check_polarization_change();
+}
+
+static struct {
+	const char *name;
+	void (*func)(void);
+} tests[] = {
+	{ "PTF", test_ptf },
+	{ NULL, NULL }
+};
+
+int main(int argc, char *argv[])
+{
+	int i;
+
+	report_prefix_push("CPU Topology");
+
+	if (!test_facility(11)) {
+		report_skip("Topology facility not present");
+		goto end;
+	}
+
+	report_info("Virtual machine level %ld", stsi_get_fc());
+
+	for (i = 0; tests[i].name; i++) {
+		report_prefix_push(tests[i].name);
+		tests[i].func();
+		report_prefix_pop();
+	}
+
+end:
+	report_prefix_pop();
+	return report_summary();
+}
diff --git a/s390x/unittests.cfg b/s390x/unittests.cfg
index b61faf0..fc3666b 100644
--- a/s390x/unittests.cfg
+++ b/s390x/unittests.cfg
@@ -218,3 +218,6 @@ extra_params = -append '--parallel'
 
 [execute]
 file = ex.elf
+
+[topology]
+file = topology.elf
-- 
2.31.1

[kvm-unit-tests PATCH v8 2/2] s390x: topology: Checking Configuration Topology Information

[Pierre Morel]

STSI with function code 15 is used to store the CPU configuration
topology.

We retrieve the maximum nested level with SCLP and use the
topology tree provided by the drawers, books, sockets, cores
arguments.

We check :
- if the topology stored is coherent between the QEMU -smp
  parameters and kernel parameters.
- the number of CPUs
- the maximum number of CPUs
- the number of containers of each levels for every STSI(15.1.x)
  instruction allowed by the machine.

Signed-off-by: Pierre Morel <pmorel@linux.ibm.com>
---
 lib/s390x/sclp.c    |   6 +
 lib/s390x/sclp.h    |   4 +-
 lib/s390x/stsi.h    |  36 +++++
 s390x/topology.c    | 325 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
 s390x/unittests.cfg |   3 +
 5 files changed, 373 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/lib/s390x/sclp.c b/lib/s390x/sclp.c
index 07523dc..c09360d 100644
--- a/lib/s390x/sclp.c
+++ b/lib/s390x/sclp.c
@@ -239,3 +239,9 @@ uint64_t get_max_ram_size(void)
 {
 	return max_ram_size;
 }
+
+uint64_t sclp_get_stsi_mnest(void)
+{
+	assert(read_info);
+	return read_info->stsi_parm;
+}
diff --git a/lib/s390x/sclp.h b/lib/s390x/sclp.h
index 853529b..6a611bc 100644
--- a/lib/s390x/sclp.h
+++ b/lib/s390x/sclp.h
@@ -150,7 +150,8 @@ typedef struct ReadInfo {
 	SCCBHeader h;
 	uint16_t rnmax;
 	uint8_t rnsize;
-	uint8_t  _reserved1[16 - 11];       /* 11-15 */
+	uint8_t  _reserved1[15 - 11];       /* 11-14 */
+	uint8_t stsi_parm;                  /* 15-15 */
 	uint16_t entries_cpu;               /* 16-17 */
 	uint16_t offset_cpu;                /* 18-19 */
 	uint8_t  _reserved2[24 - 20];       /* 20-23 */
@@ -341,5 +342,6 @@ int sclp_service_call(unsigned int command, void *sccb);
 void sclp_memory_setup(void);
 uint64_t get_ram_size(void);
 uint64_t get_max_ram_size(void);
+uint64_t sclp_get_stsi_mnest(void);
 
 #endif /* _S390X_SCLP_H_ */
diff --git a/lib/s390x/stsi.h b/lib/s390x/stsi.h
index bebc492..1351a6f 100644
--- a/lib/s390x/stsi.h
+++ b/lib/s390x/stsi.h
@@ -29,4 +29,40 @@ struct sysinfo_3_2_2 {
 	uint8_t ext_names[8][256];
 };
 
+#define CPUS_TLE_RES_BITS 0x00fffffff8000000UL
+struct topology_core {
+	uint8_t nl;
+	uint8_t reserved1[3];
+	uint8_t reserved4:5;
+	uint8_t d:1;
+	uint8_t pp:2;
+	uint8_t type;
+	uint16_t origin;
+	uint64_t mask;
+};
+
+#define CONTAINER_TLE_RES_BITS 0x00ffffffffffff00UL
+struct topology_container {
+	uint8_t nl;
+	uint8_t reserved[6];
+	uint8_t id;
+};
+
+union topology_entry {
+	uint8_t nl;
+	struct topology_core cpu;
+	struct topology_container container;
+};
+
+#define CPU_TOPOLOGY_MAX_LEVEL 6
+struct sysinfo_15_1_x {
+	uint8_t reserved0[2];
+	uint16_t length;
+	uint8_t mag[CPU_TOPOLOGY_MAX_LEVEL];
+	uint8_t reserved0a;
+	uint8_t mnest;
+	uint8_t reserved0c[4];
+	union topology_entry tle[];
+};
+
 #endif  /* _S390X_STSI_H_ */
diff --git a/s390x/topology.c b/s390x/topology.c
index 07f1650..42a9cc9 100644
--- a/s390x/topology.c
+++ b/s390x/topology.c
@@ -17,6 +17,20 @@
 #include <smp.h>
 #include <sclp.h>
 #include <s390x/hardware.h>
+#include <s390x/stsi.h>
+
+static uint8_t pagebuf[PAGE_SIZE] __attribute__((aligned(PAGE_SIZE)));
+
+static int max_nested_lvl;
+static int number_of_cpus;
+static int cpus_in_masks;
+static int max_cpus;
+
+/*
+ * Topology level as defined by architecture, all levels exists with
+ * a single container unless overwritten by the QEMU -smp parameter.
+ */
+static int expected_topo_lvl[CPU_TOPOLOGY_MAX_LEVEL] = { 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1 };
 
 #define PTF_REQ_HORIZONTAL	0
 #define PTF_REQ_VERTICAL	1
@@ -158,11 +172,320 @@ static void test_ptf(void)
 	check_polarization_change();
 }
 
+/*
+ * stsi_check_maxcpus
+ * @info: Pointer to the stsi information
+ *
+ * The product of the numbers of containers per level
+ * is the maximum number of CPU allowed by the machine.
+ */
+static void stsi_check_maxcpus(struct sysinfo_15_1_x *info)
+{
+	int n, i;
+
+	for (i = 0, n = 1; i < CPU_TOPOLOGY_MAX_LEVEL; i++)
+		n *= info->mag[i] ?: 1;
+
+	report(n == max_cpus, "Calculated max CPUs: %d", n);
+}
+
+/*
+ * 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);
+
+	/*
+	 * It is not clear how the MAG fields are calculated when mnest
+	 * in the SYSIB 15.x is different from the maximum nested level
+	 * in the SCLP info, so we skip here for now.
+	 */
+	if (max_nested_lvl != info->mnest) {
+		report_skip("No specification on layer aggregation");
+		goto done;
+	}
+
+	/*
+	 * MAG up to max_nested_lvl must match the architecture
+	 * defined containers.
+	 */
+	for (i = 0; i < max_nested_lvl; i++)
+		report(info->mag[CPU_TOPOLOGY_MAX_LEVEL - i - 1] == expected_topo_lvl[i],
+		       "MAG %d field match %d == %d",
+		       i + 1,
+		       info->mag[CPU_TOPOLOGY_MAX_LEVEL - i - 1],
+		       expected_topo_lvl[i]);
+
+	/* Above max_nested_lvl the MAG field must be null */
+	for (; i < CPU_TOPOLOGY_MAX_LEVEL; i++)
+		report(info->mag[CPU_TOPOLOGY_MAX_LEVEL - i - 1] == 0,
+		       "MAG %d field match %d == %d", i + 1,
+		       info->mag[CPU_TOPOLOGY_MAX_LEVEL - i - 1], 0);
+
+done:
+	report_prefix_pop();
+}
+
+/**
+ * check_tle:
+ * @tc: pointer to first TLE
+ *
+ * Recursively check the containers TLEs until we
+ * find a CPU TLE.
+ */
+static uint8_t *check_tle(void *tc)
+{
+	struct topology_container *container = tc;
+	struct topology_core *cpus;
+	int n;
+
+	if (container->nl) {
+		report_info("NL: %d id: %d", container->nl, container->id);
+
+		report(!(*(uint64_t *)tc & CONTAINER_TLE_RES_BITS),
+		       "reserved bits %016lx",
+		       *(uint64_t *)tc & CONTAINER_TLE_RES_BITS);
+
+		return check_tle(tc + sizeof(*container));
+	}
+
+	report_info("NL: %d", container->nl);
+	cpus = tc;
+
+	report(!(*(uint64_t *)tc & CPUS_TLE_RES_BITS), "reserved bits %016lx",
+	       *(uint64_t *)tc & CPUS_TLE_RES_BITS);
+
+	report(cpus->type == 0x03, "type IFL");
+
+	report_info("origin: %d", cpus->origin);
+	report_info("mask: %016lx", cpus->mask);
+	report_info("dedicated: %d entitlement: %d", cpus->d, cpus->pp);
+
+	n = __builtin_popcountl(cpus->mask);
+	report(n <= expected_topo_lvl[0], "CPUs per mask: %d out of max %d",
+	       n, expected_topo_lvl[0]);
+	cpus_in_masks += n;
+
+	report(!cpus->d || (cpus->pp == 3 || cpus->pp == 0),
+	       "Dedication versus entitlement");
+	report_info("d: %d pp: %d", cpus->d, cpus->pp);
+
+	return tc + sizeof(*cpus);
+}
+
+/**
+ * stsi_check_tle_coherency:
+ * @info: Pointer to the stsi information
+ *
+ * We verify that we get the expected number of Topology List Entry
+ * containers for a specific level.
+ */
+static void stsi_check_tle_coherency(struct sysinfo_15_1_x *info)
+{
+	void *tc, *end;
+
+	report_prefix_push("TLE");
+	cpus_in_masks = 0;
+
+	tc = info->tle;
+	end = (void *)info + info->length;
+
+	while (tc < end)
+		tc = check_tle(tc);
+
+	report(cpus_in_masks == number_of_cpus, "CPUs in mask %d",
+	       cpus_in_masks);
+
+	report_prefix_pop();
+}
+
+/**
+ * stsi_get_sysib:
+ * @info: pointer to the STSI info structure
+ * @sel2: the selector giving the topology level to check
+ *
+ * Fill the sysinfo_15_1_x info structure and check the
+ * SYSIB header.
+ *
+ * Returns instruction validity.
+ */
+static int stsi_get_sysib(struct sysinfo_15_1_x *info, int sel2)
+{
+	int ret;
+
+	report_prefix_pushf("SYSIB");
+
+	ret = stsi(pagebuf, 15, 1, sel2);
+
+	if (max_nested_lvl >= sel2) {
+		report(!ret, "Valid instruction");
+		report(sel2 == info->mnest, "Valid mnest");
+	} else {
+		report(ret, "Invalid instruction");
+	}
+
+	report_prefix_pop();
+
+	return ret;
+}
+
+/**
+ * check_sysinfo_15_1_x:
+ * @info: pointer to the STSI info structure
+ * @sel2: the selector giving the topology level to check
+ *
+ * Check if the validity of the STSI instruction and then
+ * calls specific checks on the information buffer.
+ */
+static void check_sysinfo_15_1_x(struct sysinfo_15_1_x *info, int sel2)
+{
+	int ret;
+	int cc;
+	unsigned long rc;
+
+	report_prefix_pushf("15_1_%d", sel2);
+
+	ret = stsi_get_sysib(info, sel2);
+	if (ret) {
+		report_skip("Selector 2 not supported by architecture");
+		goto end;
+	}
+
+	report_prefix_pushf("H");
+	cc = ptf(PTF_REQ_HORIZONTAL, &rc);
+	if (cc != 0 && rc != PTF_ERR_ALRDY_POLARIZED) {
+		report(0, "Unable to set horizontal polarization");
+		goto vertical;
+	}
+
+	stsi_check_mag(info);
+	stsi_check_tle_coherency(info);
+
+vertical:
+	report_prefix_pop();
+	report_prefix_pushf("V");
+
+	cc = ptf(PTF_REQ_VERTICAL, &rc);
+	if (cc != 0 && rc != PTF_ERR_ALRDY_POLARIZED) {
+		report(0, "Unable to set vertical polarization");
+		goto end;
+	}
+
+	stsi_check_mag(info);
+	stsi_check_tle_coherency(info);
+	report_prefix_pop();
+
+end:
+	report_prefix_pop();
+}
+
+/*
+ * The Maximum Nested level is given by SCLP READ_SCP_INFO if the MNEST facility
+ * is available.
+ * If the MNEST facility is not available, sclp_get_stsi_mnest  returns 0 and the
+ * Maximum Nested level is 2
+ */
+#define S390_DEFAULT_MNEST	2
+static int sclp_get_mnest(void)
+{
+	return sclp_get_stsi_mnest() ?: S390_DEFAULT_MNEST;
+}
+
+static int arch_max_cpus(void)
+{
+	int i;
+	int ncpus = 1;
+
+	for (i = 0; i < CPU_TOPOLOGY_MAX_LEVEL; i++)
+		ncpus *= expected_topo_lvl[i] ?: 1;
+
+	return ncpus;
+}
+
+/**
+ * test_stsi:
+ *
+ * Retrieves the maximum nested topology level supported by the architecture
+ * and the number of CPUs.
+ * Calls the checking for the STSI instruction in sel2 reverse level order
+ * from 6 (CPU_TOPOLOGY_MAX_LEVEL) to 2 to have the most interesting level,
+ * the one triggering a topology-change-report-pending condition, level 2,
+ * at the end of the report.
+ *
+ */
+static void test_stsi(void)
+{
+	int sel2;
+
+	max_cpus = arch_max_cpus();
+	report_info("Architecture max CPUs: %d", max_cpus);
+
+	max_nested_lvl = sclp_get_mnest();
+	report_info("SCLP maximum nested level : %d", max_nested_lvl);
+
+	number_of_cpus = sclp_get_cpu_num();
+	report_info("SCLP number of CPU: %d", number_of_cpus);
+
+	/* STSI selector 2 can takes values between 2 and 6 */
+	for (sel2 = 6; sel2 >= 2; sel2--)
+		check_sysinfo_15_1_x((struct sysinfo_15_1_x *)pagebuf, sel2);
+}
+
+/**
+ * parse_topology_args:
+ * @argc: number of arguments
+ * @argv: argument array
+ *
+ * This function initialize the architecture topology levels
+ * which should be the same as the one provided by the hypervisor.
+ *
+ * We use the current names found in IBM/Z literature, Linux and QEMU:
+ * cores, sockets/packages, books, drawers and nodes to facilitate the
+ * human machine interface but store the result in a machine abstract
+ * array of architecture topology levels.
+ * Note that when QEMU uses socket as a name for the topology level 1
+ * Linux uses package or physical_package.
+ */
+static void parse_topology_args(int argc, char **argv)
+{
+	int i;
+	static const char * const levels[] = { "cores", "sockets",
+					       "books", "drawers" };
+
+	for (i = 1; i < argc; i++) {
+		char *flag = argv[i];
+		int level;
+
+		if (flag[0] != '-')
+			report_abort("Argument is expected to begin with '-'");
+		flag++;
+		for (level = 0; ARRAY_SIZE(levels); level++) {
+			if (!strcmp(levels[level], flag))
+				break;
+		}
+		if (level == ARRAY_SIZE(levels))
+			report_abort("Unknown parameter %s", flag);
+
+		expected_topo_lvl[level] = atol(argv[++i]);
+		report_info("%s: %d", levels[level], expected_topo_lvl[level]);
+	}
+}
+
 static struct {
 	const char *name;
 	void (*func)(void);
 } tests[] = {
 	{ "PTF", test_ptf },
+	{ "STSI", test_stsi },
 	{ NULL, NULL }
 };
 
@@ -172,6 +495,8 @@ int main(int argc, char *argv[])
 
 	report_prefix_push("CPU Topology");
 
+	parse_topology_args(argc, argv);
+
 	if (!test_facility(11)) {
 		report_skip("Topology facility not present");
 		goto end;
diff --git a/s390x/unittests.cfg b/s390x/unittests.cfg
index fc3666b..375e6ce 100644
--- a/s390x/unittests.cfg
+++ b/s390x/unittests.cfg
@@ -221,3 +221,6 @@ file = ex.elf
 
 [topology]
 file = topology.elf
+# 3 CPUs on socket 0 with different CPU TLE (standard, dedicated, origin)
+# 1 CPU on socket 2
+extra_params = -smp 1,drawers=3,books=3,sockets=4,cores=4,maxcpus=144 -cpu z14,ctop=on -device z14-s390x-cpu,core-id=1,entitlement=low -device z14-s390x-cpu,core-id=2,dedicated=on -device z14-s390x-cpu,core-id=10 -device z14-s390x-cpu,core-id=20 -device z14-s390x-cpu,core-id=130,socket-id=0,book-id=0,drawer-id=0 -append '-drawers 3 -books 3 -sockets 4 -cores 4'
-- 
2.31.1

Re: [kvm-unit-tests PATCH v8 1/2] s390x: topology: Check the Perform Topology Function

[Nico Boehr]

Quoting Pierre Morel (2023-04-26 10:34:25)
[...]
> diff --git a/s390x/topology.c b/s390x/topology.c
> new file mode 100644
> index 0000000..07f1650
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/s390x/topology.c
> @@ -0,0 +1,191 @@
[...]
> +#define PTF_INVALID_FUNCTION   0xff

No longer used?

[...]
> +static void check_specifications(void)
> +{
> +       unsigned long wrong_bits = 0;
> +       unsigned long ptf_bits;
> +       unsigned long rc;
> +       int i;
> +
> +       report_prefix_push("Specifications");
> +
> +       /* Function codes above 3 are undefined */
> +       for (i = 4; i < 255; i++) {
> +               expect_pgm_int();
> +               ptf(i, &rc);
> +               mb();
> +               if (lowcore.pgm_int_code != PGM_INT_CODE_SPECIFICATION) {

Please use clear_pgm_int(), the return value will be the interruption code. You can also get rid of the barrier then.

Also, using wrong_bits is confusing here since it serves a completely different purpose below.

Maybe just:

if (clear_pgm_int() != PGM_INT_CODE_SPECIFICATION)
    report_fail("FC %d did not yield specification exception", i);

[...]
> +       /* Reserved bits must be 0 */
> +       for (i = 8, wrong_bits = 0; i < 64; i++) {
> +               ptf_bits = 0x01UL << i;
> +               expect_pgm_int();
> +               ptf(ptf_bits, &rc);
> +               mb();
> +               if (lowcore.pgm_int_code != PGM_INT_CODE_SPECIFICATION)

Also use clear_pgm_int() here.

Re: [kvm-unit-tests PATCH v8 1/2] s390x: topology: Check the Perform Topology Function

[Pierre Morel]

On 4/27/23 08:57, Nico Boehr wrote:
> Quoting Pierre Morel (2023-04-26 10:34:25)
> [...]
>> diff --git a/s390x/topology.c b/s390x/topology.c
>> new file mode 100644
>> index 0000000..07f1650
>> --- /dev/null
>> +++ b/s390x/topology.c
>> @@ -0,0 +1,191 @@
> [...]
>> +#define PTF_INVALID_FUNCTION   0xff
> No longer used?


right


>
> [...]
>> +static void check_specifications(void)
>> +{
>> +       unsigned long wrong_bits = 0;
>> +       unsigned long ptf_bits;
>> +       unsigned long rc;
>> +       int i;
>> +
>> +       report_prefix_push("Specifications");
>> +
>> +       /* Function codes above 3 are undefined */
>> +       for (i = 4; i < 255; i++) {
>> +               expect_pgm_int();
>> +               ptf(i, &rc);
>> +               mb();
>> +               if (lowcore.pgm_int_code != PGM_INT_CODE_SPECIFICATION) {
> Please use clear_pgm_int(), the return value will be the interruption code. You can also get rid of the barrier then.
>
> Also, using wrong_bits is confusing here since it serves a completely different purpose below.
>
> Maybe just:
>
> if (clear_pgm_int() != PGM_INT_CODE_SPECIFICATION)
>      report_fail("FC %d did not yield specification exception", i);

OK, thanks,


>
> [...]
>> +       /* Reserved bits must be 0 */
>> +       for (i = 8, wrong_bits = 0; i < 64; i++) {
>> +               ptf_bits = 0x01UL << i;
>> +               expect_pgm_int();
>> +               ptf(ptf_bits, &rc);
>> +               mb();
>> +               if (lowcore.pgm_int_code != PGM_INT_CODE_SPECIFICATION)
> Also use clear_pgm_int() here.


OK, too, thanks


Regards,

Pierre

Re: [kvm-unit-tests PATCH v8 2/2] s390x: topology: Checking Configuration Topology Information

[Nico Boehr]

Quoting Pierre Morel (2023-04-26 10:34:26)
> diff --git a/s390x/topology.c b/s390x/topology.c
> index 07f1650..42a9cc9 100644
> --- a/s390x/topology.c
> +++ b/s390x/topology.c
> @@ -17,6 +17,20 @@
[...]
> +/**
> + * check_tle:
> + * @tc: pointer to first TLE
> + *
> + * Recursively check the containers TLEs until we
> + * find a CPU TLE.
> + */
> +static uint8_t *check_tle(void *tc)
> +{
[...]
> +
> +       report(!cpus->d || (cpus->pp == 3 || cpus->pp == 0),
> +              "Dedication versus entitlement");

Again, I would prefer something like this:

if (!cpus->d)
    report_skip("Not dedicated")
else
    report(cpus->pp == 3 || cpus->pp == 0, "Dedicated CPUs are either vertically polarized or have high entitlement")

No?

[...]

> +/**
> + * check_sysinfo_15_1_x:
> + * @info: pointer to the STSI info structure
> + * @sel2: the selector giving the topology level to check
> + *
> + * Check if the validity of the STSI instruction and then
> + * calls specific checks on the information buffer.
> + */
> +static void check_sysinfo_15_1_x(struct sysinfo_15_1_x *info, int sel2)
> +{
> +       int ret;
> +       int cc;
> +       unsigned long rc;
> +
> +       report_prefix_pushf("15_1_%d", sel2);
> +
> +       ret = stsi_get_sysib(info, sel2);
> +       if (ret) {
> +               report_skip("Selector 2 not supported by architecture");
> +               goto end;
> +       }
> +
> +       report_prefix_pushf("H");
> +       cc = ptf(PTF_REQ_HORIZONTAL, &rc);
> +       if (cc != 0 && rc != PTF_ERR_ALRDY_POLARIZED) {
> +               report(0, "Unable to set horizontal polarization");

report_fail() please

> +               goto vertical;
> +       }
> +
> +       stsi_check_mag(info);
> +       stsi_check_tle_coherency(info);
> +
> +vertical:
> +       report_prefix_pop();
> +       report_prefix_pushf("V");
> +
> +       cc = ptf(PTF_REQ_VERTICAL, &rc);
> +       if (cc != 0 && rc != PTF_ERR_ALRDY_POLARIZED) {
> +               report(0, "Unable to set vertical polarization");

report_fail() please

[...]
> +static int arch_max_cpus(void)

Does the name arch_max_cpus() make sense? Maybe expected_num_cpus()?

> diff --git a/s390x/unittests.cfg b/s390x/unittests.cfg
> index fc3666b..375e6ce 100644
> --- a/s390x/unittests.cfg
> +++ b/s390x/unittests.cfg
> @@ -221,3 +221,6 @@ file = ex.elf
>  
>  [topology]
>  file = topology.elf
> +# 3 CPUs on socket 0 with different CPU TLE (standard, dedicated, origin)
> +# 1 CPU on socket 2
> +extra_params = -smp 1,drawers=3,books=3,sockets=4,cores=4,maxcpus=144 -cpu z14,ctop=on -device z14-s390x-cpu,core-id=1,entitlement=low -device z14-s390x-cpu,core-id=2,dedicated=on -device z14-s390x-cpu,core-id=10 -device z14-s390x-cpu,core-id=20 -device z14-s390x-cpu,core-id=130,socket-id=0,book-id=0,drawer-id=0 -append '-drawers 3 -books 3 -sockets 4 -cores 4'

If I got the command line right, all CPUs are on the same drawer with this command line, aren't they? If so, does it make sense to run with different combinations, i.e. CPUs on different drawers, books etc?

Re: [kvm-unit-tests PATCH v8 2/2] s390x: topology: Checking Configuration Topology Information

[Pierre Morel]

On 4/27/23 10:47, Nico Boehr wrote:
> Quoting Pierre Morel (2023-04-26 10:34:26)
>> diff --git a/s390x/topology.c b/s390x/topology.c
>> index 07f1650..42a9cc9 100644
>> --- a/s390x/topology.c
>> +++ b/s390x/topology.c
>> @@ -17,6 +17,20 @@
> [...]
>> +/**
>> + * check_tle:
>> + * @tc: pointer to first TLE
>> + *
>> + * Recursively check the containers TLEs until we
>> + * find a CPU TLE.
>> + */
>> +static uint8_t *check_tle(void *tc)
>> +{
> [...]
>> +
>> +       report(!cpus->d || (cpus->pp == 3 || cpus->pp == 0),
>> +              "Dedication versus entitlement");
> Again, I would prefer something like this:
>
> if (!cpus->d)
>      report_skip("Not dedicated")
> else
>      report(cpus->pp == 3 || cpus->pp == 0, "Dedicated CPUs are either vertically polarized or have high entitlement")
>
> No?
>
> [...]

Yes looks better, thanks


>
>> +/**
>> + * check_sysinfo_15_1_x:
>> + * @info: pointer to the STSI info structure
>> + * @sel2: the selector giving the topology level to check
>> + *
>> + * Check if the validity of the STSI instruction and then
>> + * calls specific checks on the information buffer.
>> + */
>> +static void check_sysinfo_15_1_x(struct sysinfo_15_1_x *info, int sel2)
>> +{
>> +       int ret;
>> +       int cc;
>> +       unsigned long rc;
>> +
>> +       report_prefix_pushf("15_1_%d", sel2);
>> +
>> +       ret = stsi_get_sysib(info, sel2);
>> +       if (ret) {
>> +               report_skip("Selector 2 not supported by architecture");
>> +               goto end;
>> +       }
>> +
>> +       report_prefix_pushf("H");
>> +       cc = ptf(PTF_REQ_HORIZONTAL, &rc);
>> +       if (cc != 0 && rc != PTF_ERR_ALRDY_POLARIZED) {
>> +               report(0, "Unable to set horizontal polarization");
> report_fail() please

OK


>
>> +               goto vertical;
>> +       }
>> +
>> +       stsi_check_mag(info);
>> +       stsi_check_tle_coherency(info);
>> +
>> +vertical:
>> +       report_prefix_pop();
>> +       report_prefix_pushf("V");
>> +
>> +       cc = ptf(PTF_REQ_VERTICAL, &rc);
>> +       if (cc != 0 && rc != PTF_ERR_ALRDY_POLARIZED) {
>> +               report(0, "Unable to set vertical polarization");
> report_fail() please

OK


>
> [...]
>> +static int arch_max_cpus(void)
> Does the name arch_max_cpus() make sense? Maybe expected_num_cpus()?


Yes OK.


>
>> diff --git a/s390x/unittests.cfg b/s390x/unittests.cfg
>> index fc3666b..375e6ce 100644
>> --- a/s390x/unittests.cfg
>> +++ b/s390x/unittests.cfg
>> @@ -221,3 +221,6 @@ file = ex.elf
>>   
>>   [topology]
>>   file = topology.elf
>> +# 3 CPUs on socket 0 with different CPU TLE (standard, dedicated, origin)
>> +# 1 CPU on socket 2
>> +extra_params = -smp 1,drawers=3,books=3,sockets=4,cores=4,maxcpus=144 -cpu z14,ctop=on -device z14-s390x-cpu,core-id=1,entitlement=low -device z14-s390x-cpu,core-id=2,dedicated=on -device z14-s390x-cpu,core-id=10 -device z14-s390x-cpu,core-id=20 -device z14-s390x-cpu,core-id=130,socket-id=0,book-id=0,drawer-id=0 -append '-drawers 3 -books 3 -sockets 4 -cores 4'
> If I got the command line right, all CPUs are on the same drawer with this command line, aren't they? If so, does it make sense to run with different combinations, i.e. CPUs on different drawers, books etc?

OK, I will add some CPU on different drawers and books.

Re: [kvm-unit-tests PATCH v8 2/2] s390x: topology: Checking Configuration Topology Information

[Nico Boehr]

Quoting Pierre Morel (2023-04-27 16:50:16)
[...]
> >> diff --git a/s390x/unittests.cfg b/s390x/unittests.cfg
> >> index fc3666b..375e6ce 100644
> >> --- a/s390x/unittests.cfg
> >> +++ b/s390x/unittests.cfg
> >> @@ -221,3 +221,6 @@ file = ex.elf
> >>   
> >>   [topology]
> >>   file = topology.elf
> >> +# 3 CPUs on socket 0 with different CPU TLE (standard, dedicated, origin)
> >> +# 1 CPU on socket 2
> >> +extra_params = -smp 1,drawers=3,books=3,sockets=4,cores=4,maxcpus=144 -cpu z14,ctop=on -device z14-s390x-cpu,core-id=1,entitlement=low -device z14-s390x-cpu,core-id=2,dedicated=on -device z14-s390x-cpu,core-id=10 -device z14-s390x-cpu,core-id=20 -device z14-s390x-cpu,core-id=130,socket-id=0,book-id=0,drawer-id=0 -append '-drawers 3 -books 3 -sockets 4 -cores 4'
> > If I got the command line right, all CPUs are on the same drawer with this command line, aren't they? If so, does it make sense to run with different combinations, i.e. CPUs on different drawers, books etc?
> 
> OK, I will add some CPU on different drawers and books.

just to clarify: What I meant is adding an *additional* entry to unittests.cfg. Does it make sense in your opinion? I just want more coverage for different scenarios we may have.

Re: [kvm-unit-tests PATCH v8 2/2] s390x: topology: Checking Configuration Topology Information

[Pierre Morel]

On 4/28/23 09:52, Nico Boehr wrote:
> Quoting Pierre Morel (2023-04-27 16:50:16)
> [...]
>>>> diff --git a/s390x/unittests.cfg b/s390x/unittests.cfg
>>>> index fc3666b..375e6ce 100644
>>>> --- a/s390x/unittests.cfg
>>>> +++ b/s390x/unittests.cfg
>>>> @@ -221,3 +221,6 @@ file = ex.elf
>>>>    
>>>>    [topology]
>>>>    file = topology.elf
>>>> +# 3 CPUs on socket 0 with different CPU TLE (standard, dedicated, origin)
>>>> +# 1 CPU on socket 2
>>>> +extra_params = -smp 1,drawers=3,books=3,sockets=4,cores=4,maxcpus=144 -cpu z14,ctop=on -device z14-s390x-cpu,core-id=1,entitlement=low -device z14-s390x-cpu,core-id=2,dedicated=on -device z14-s390x-cpu,core-id=10 -device z14-s390x-cpu,core-id=20 -device z14-s390x-cpu,core-id=130,socket-id=0,book-id=0,drawer-id=0 -append '-drawers 3 -books 3 -sockets 4 -cores 4'
>>> If I got the command line right, all CPUs are on the same drawer with this command line, aren't they? If so, does it make sense to run with different combinations, i.e. CPUs on different drawers, books etc?
>> OK, I will add some CPU on different drawers and books.
> just to clarify: What I meant is adding an *additional* entry to unittests.cfg. Does it make sense in your opinion? I just want more coverage for different scenarios we may have.

Ah OK, yes even better.

In this test I chose the values randomly, I can add 2 other tests like

- once with the maximum of CPUs like:

[topology-2]
file = topology.elf
extra_params = -smp drawers=3,books=4,sockets=5,cores=4,maxcpus=240  
-append '-drawers 3 -books 4 -sockets 5 -cores 4'


or having 8 different TLE on the same socket

[topology-2]

file = topology.elf
extra_params = -smp 1,drawers=2,books=2,sockets=2,cores=30,maxcpus=240  
-append '-drawers 2 -books 2 -sockets 2 -cores 30' -cpu z14,ctop=on 
-device 
z14-s390x-cpu,drawer-id=1,book-id=0,socket-id=0,core-id=2,entitlement=low 
-device 
z14-s390x-cpu,drawer-id=1,book-id=0,socket-id=0,core-id=3,entitlement=medium 
-device 
z14-s390x-cpu,drawer-id=1,book-id=0,socket-id=0,core-id=4,entitlement=high 
-device 
z14-s390x-cpu,drawer-id=1,book-id=0,socket-id=0,core-id=5,entitlement=high,dedicated=on 
-device 
z14-s390x-cpu,drawer-id=1,book-id=0,socket-id=0,core-id=65,entitlement=low 
-device 
z14-s390x-cpu,drawer-id=1,book-id=0,socket-id=0,core-id=66,entitlement=medium 
-device 
z14-s390x-cpu,drawer-id=1,book-id=0,socket-id=0,core-id=67,entitlement=high 
-device 
z14-s390x-cpu,drawer-id=1,book-id=0,socket-id=0,core-id=68,entitlement=high,dedicated=on


What do you think is the best ?

Regards,

Pierre

Re: [kvm-unit-tests PATCH v8 2/2] s390x: topology: Checking Configuration Topology Information

[Nico Boehr]

Quoting Pierre Morel (2023-04-28 15:10:07)
> 
> On 4/28/23 09:52, Nico Boehr wrote:
> > Quoting Pierre Morel (2023-04-27 16:50:16)
> > [...]
> >>>> diff --git a/s390x/unittests.cfg b/s390x/unittests.cfg
> >>>> index fc3666b..375e6ce 100644
> >>>> --- a/s390x/unittests.cfg
> >>>> +++ b/s390x/unittests.cfg
> >>>> @@ -221,3 +221,6 @@ file = ex.elf
> >>>>    
> >>>>    [topology]
> >>>>    file = topology.elf
> >>>> +# 3 CPUs on socket 0 with different CPU TLE (standard, dedicated, origin)
> >>>> +# 1 CPU on socket 2
> >>>> +extra_params = -smp 1,drawers=3,books=3,sockets=4,cores=4,maxcpus=144 -cpu z14,ctop=on -device z14-s390x-cpu,core-id=1,entitlement=low -device z14-s390x-cpu,core-id=2,dedicated=on -device z14-s390x-cpu,core-id=10 -device z14-s390x-cpu,core-id=20 -device z14-s390x-cpu,core-id=130,socket-id=0,book-id=0,drawer-id=0 -append '-drawers 3 -books 3 -sockets 4 -cores 4'
> >>> If I got the command line right, all CPUs are on the same drawer with this command line, aren't they? If so, does it make sense to run with different combinations, i.e. CPUs on different drawers, books etc?
> >> OK, I will add some CPU on different drawers and books.
> > just to clarify: What I meant is adding an *additional* entry to unittests.cfg. Does it make sense in your opinion? I just want more coverage for different scenarios we may have.
> 
> Ah OK, yes even better.
> 
> In this test I chose the values randomly, I can add 2 other tests like
> 
> - once with the maximum of CPUs like:
> 
> [topology-2]
> file = topology.elf
> extra_params = -smp drawers=3,books=4,sockets=5,cores=4,maxcpus=240  
> -append '-drawers 3 -books 4 -sockets 5 -cores 4'
> 
> 
> or having 8 different TLE on the same socket
> 
> [topology-2]
> 
> file = topology.elf
> extra_params = -smp 1,drawers=2,books=2,sockets=2,cores=30,maxcpus=240  
> -append '-drawers 2 -books 2 -sockets 2 -cores 30' -cpu z14,ctop=on 
> -device 
> z14-s390x-cpu,drawer-id=1,book-id=0,socket-id=0,core-id=2,entitlement=low 
> -device 
> z14-s390x-cpu,drawer-id=1,book-id=0,socket-id=0,core-id=3,entitlement=medium 
> -device 
> z14-s390x-cpu,drawer-id=1,book-id=0,socket-id=0,core-id=4,entitlement=high 
> -device 
> z14-s390x-cpu,drawer-id=1,book-id=0,socket-id=0,core-id=5,entitlement=high,dedicated=on 
> -device 
> z14-s390x-cpu,drawer-id=1,book-id=0,socket-id=0,core-id=65,entitlement=low 
> -device 
> z14-s390x-cpu,drawer-id=1,book-id=0,socket-id=0,core-id=66,entitlement=medium 
> -device 
> z14-s390x-cpu,drawer-id=1,book-id=0,socket-id=0,core-id=67,entitlement=high 
> -device 
> z14-s390x-cpu,drawer-id=1,book-id=0,socket-id=0,core-id=68,entitlement=high,dedicated=on
> 
> 
> What do you think is the best ?

I think both do make sense, since they cover differenct scenarios, don't they?

Re: [kvm-unit-tests PATCH v8 2/2] s390x: topology: Checking Configuration Topology Information

[Pierre Morel]

On 5/3/23 13:56, Nico Boehr wrote:
> Quoting Pierre Morel (2023-04-28 15:10:07)
>> On 4/28/23 09:52, Nico Boehr wrote:
>>> Quoting Pierre Morel (2023-04-27 16:50:16)
>>> [...]
>>>>>> diff --git a/s390x/unittests.cfg b/s390x/unittests.cfg
>>>>>> index fc3666b..375e6ce 100644
>>>>>> --- a/s390x/unittests.cfg
>>>>>> +++ b/s390x/unittests.cfg
>>>>>> @@ -221,3 +221,6 @@ file = ex.elf
>>>>>>     
>>>>>>     [topology]
>>>>>>     file = topology.elf
>>>>>> +# 3 CPUs on socket 0 with different CPU TLE (standard, dedicated, origin)
>>>>>> +# 1 CPU on socket 2
>>>>>> +extra_params = -smp 1,drawers=3,books=3,sockets=4,cores=4,maxcpus=144 -cpu z14,ctop=on -device z14-s390x-cpu,core-id=1,entitlement=low -device z14-s390x-cpu,core-id=2,dedicated=on -device z14-s390x-cpu,core-id=10 -device z14-s390x-cpu,core-id=20 -device z14-s390x-cpu,core-id=130,socket-id=0,book-id=0,drawer-id=0 -append '-drawers 3 -books 3 -sockets 4 -cores 4'
>>>>> If I got the command line right, all CPUs are on the same drawer with this command line, aren't they? If so, does it make sense to run with different combinations, i.e. CPUs on different drawers, books etc?
>>>> OK, I will add some CPU on different drawers and books.
>>> just to clarify: What I meant is adding an *additional* entry to unittests.cfg. Does it make sense in your opinion? I just want more coverage for different scenarios we may have.
>> Ah OK, yes even better.
>>
>> In this test I chose the values randomly, I can add 2 other tests like
>>
>> - once with the maximum of CPUs like:
>>
>> [topology-2]
>> file = topology.elf
>> extra_params = -smp drawers=3,books=4,sockets=5,cores=4,maxcpus=240
>> -append '-drawers 3 -books 4 -sockets 5 -cores 4'
>>
>>
>> or having 8 different TLE on the same socket
>>
>> [topology-2]
>>
>> file = topology.elf
>> extra_params = -smp 1,drawers=2,books=2,sockets=2,cores=30,maxcpus=240
>> -append '-drawers 2 -books 2 -sockets 2 -cores 30' -cpu z14,ctop=on
>> -device
>> z14-s390x-cpu,drawer-id=1,book-id=0,socket-id=0,core-id=2,entitlement=low
>> -device
>> z14-s390x-cpu,drawer-id=1,book-id=0,socket-id=0,core-id=3,entitlement=medium
>> -device
>> z14-s390x-cpu,drawer-id=1,book-id=0,socket-id=0,core-id=4,entitlement=high
>> -device
>> z14-s390x-cpu,drawer-id=1,book-id=0,socket-id=0,core-id=5,entitlement=high,dedicated=on
>> -device
>> z14-s390x-cpu,drawer-id=1,book-id=0,socket-id=0,core-id=65,entitlement=low
>> -device
>> z14-s390x-cpu,drawer-id=1,book-id=0,socket-id=0,core-id=66,entitlement=medium
>> -device
>> z14-s390x-cpu,drawer-id=1,book-id=0,socket-id=0,core-id=67,entitlement=high
>> -device
>> z14-s390x-cpu,drawer-id=1,book-id=0,socket-id=0,core-id=68,entitlement=high,dedicated=on
>>
>>
>> What do you think is the best ?
> I think both do make sense, since they cover differenct scenarios, don't they?


Yes,

also

[topology-2]
file = topology.elf
extra_params = -smp books=2,sockets=31,cores=4,maxcpus=248
-append '-drawers 1 -books 2 -sockets 31 -cores 4'

Could make sense too, it is the way I found the sclp problem, but it will fail until sclp is fixed using facility 140.