From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Christian Borntraeger Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/4] kvm-s390: onereg for timer related registers Date: Tue, 05 Jun 2012 14:57:37 +0200 Message-ID: <4FCE0241.3000808@de.ibm.com> References: <1337084128-38219-1-git-send-email-borntraeger@de.ibm.com> <1337084128-38219-5-git-send-email-borntraeger@de.ibm.com> <8300B56E-8A7F-4E4C-824C-307B6DC94521@suse.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Avi Kivity , Marcelo Tossati , Carsten Otte , Jens Freimann , Cornelia Huck , Heiko Carstens , Martin Schwidefsky , Heinz Graalfs , KVM , "Jason J. herne" To: Alexander Graf Return-path: Received: from e06smtp18.uk.ibm.com ([195.75.94.114]:42710 "EHLO e06smtp18.uk.ibm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751392Ab2FEM5o (ORCPT ); Tue, 5 Jun 2012 08:57:44 -0400 Received: from /spool/local by e06smtp18.uk.ibm.com with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted for from ; Tue, 5 Jun 2012 13:57:41 +0100 Received: from d06av03.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (d06av03.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com [9.149.37.213]) by d06nrmr1507.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id q55CvcJp1872032 for ; Tue, 5 Jun 2012 13:57:39 +0100 Received: from d06av03.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by d06av03.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (8.14.4/8.13.1/NCO v10.0 AVout) with ESMTP id q55Cvbv1026333 for ; Tue, 5 Jun 2012 06:57:38 -0600 In-Reply-To: <8300B56E-8A7F-4E4C-824C-307B6DC94521@suse.de> Sender: kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On 05/06/12 14:42, Alexander Graf wrote: > > On 15.05.2012, at 14:15, Christian Borntraeger wrote: > >> From: "Jason J. herne" >> >> Enhance the KVM ONE_REG capability within S390 to allow >> getting/setting the following special cpu registers: clock comparator >> and the cpu timer. These are needed for migration. >> >> Signed-off-by: Jason J. herne >> Signed-off-by: Christian Borntraeger > > Any other registers we need to expose to user space while we're at it? :) I hope not. Life guest relocation prototyping indicates that we have at least the subset that allows a linux guest to continue. We might need a way for userspace to influence the output of the store system information and store facility list instruction. Dont know, maybe we could use ONEREG even for that purpose. Its on my todo list, but there are too many other things to tidy up. Since this would be interface/ABI I dont want to rush without really understanding what I need for those instruction. Christian