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 769F1C433F5 for ; Thu, 3 Feb 2022 15:48:13 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1351930AbiBCPsM (ORCPT ); Thu, 3 Feb 2022 10:48:12 -0500 Received: from mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com ([148.163.156.1]:5148 "EHLO mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S238679AbiBCPsK (ORCPT ); Thu, 3 Feb 2022 10:48:10 -0500 Received: from pps.filterd (m0098410.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (8.16.1.2/8.16.1.2) with SMTP id 213EcTns013236 for ; Thu, 3 Feb 2022 15:48:10 GMT DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=ibm.com; h=date : from : to : cc : subject : message-id : in-reply-to : references : mime-version : content-type : content-transfer-encoding; s=pp1; bh=N5t4GBonbKkaxxlBEpXLQRDSTHQa9a913ZbpMyFCLAU=; b=DDMS0Fp9REvEYje/GKRfepM5QZxXnMlJxOWcHg3SQi7B+ecvaaFj5rbT9/H27fCY062M i8GtDRSme5y3X0GS2dEluYu7J+W7yVp67XSmViD4wYbedGnDhVE/CDi7JggXreNAW77f QoH2WG1T8/McIG+w9vOWfoevJ1TMFveTCA4rM562tLGm9SKjT3ONhKqH0QtQu1MAVbQa HSldxsf4zIjNgO1HB8jCONuLUkBamCGI/mZmJl56ZRY+scV9qBCSWP/rADwLFsN2hFGu 2C7h2NbUgNQwhyXjgsho8LgsjJiJW25ztED3SJaehVMu5ob90WjO7hModu59/o5rypGk rQ== Received: from pps.reinject (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 3dyvexu4h6-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT) for ; Thu, 03 Feb 2022 15:48:10 +0000 Received: from m0098410.ppops.net (m0098410.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by pps.reinject (8.16.0.43/8.16.0.43) with SMTP id 213FQuND015035 for ; Thu, 3 Feb 2022 15:48:09 GMT Received: from ppma01fra.de.ibm.com (46.49.7a9f.ip4.static.sl-reverse.com [159.122.73.70]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 3dyvexu4gb-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Thu, 03 Feb 2022 15:48:09 +0000 Received: from pps.filterd (ppma01fra.de.ibm.com [127.0.0.1]) by ppma01fra.de.ibm.com (8.16.1.2/8.16.1.2) with SMTP id 213FRSQd009819; Thu, 3 Feb 2022 15:48:07 GMT Received: from b06cxnps4074.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (d06relay11.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com [9.149.109.196]) by ppma01fra.de.ibm.com with ESMTP id 3dvw79wp66-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Thu, 03 Feb 2022 15:48:07 +0000 Received: from d06av23.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (d06av23.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com [9.149.105.59]) by b06cxnps4074.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (8.14.9/8.14.9/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id 213Fm3XO43516298 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK); Thu, 3 Feb 2022 15:48:03 GMT Received: from d06av23.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id BB85DA404D; Thu, 3 Feb 2022 15:48:03 +0000 (GMT) Received: from d06av23.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 48A08A4040; Thu, 3 Feb 2022 15:48:03 +0000 (GMT) Received: from p-imbrenda (unknown [9.145.1.135]) by d06av23.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP; Thu, 3 Feb 2022 15:48:03 +0000 (GMT) Date: Thu, 3 Feb 2022 16:48:00 +0100 From: Claudio Imbrenda To: Janosch Frank Cc: kvm@vger.kernel.org, thuth@redhat.com, david@redhat.com, nrb@linux.ibm.com, scgl@linux.ibm.com, seiden@linux.ibm.com Subject: Re: [kvm-unit-tests PATCH v1 0/5] s390x: smp: avoid hardcoded CPU addresses Message-ID: <20220203164800.732ad674@p-imbrenda> In-Reply-To: <9a38563e-3307-13df-e734-483a31822e08@linux.ibm.com> References: <20220128185449.64936-1-imbrenda@linux.ibm.com> <20220203143712.28b1881e@p-imbrenda> <9a38563e-3307-13df-e734-483a31822e08@linux.ibm.com> Organization: IBM X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.18.0 (GTK+ 2.24.33; x86_64-redhat-linux-gnu) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-TM-AS-GCONF: 00 X-Proofpoint-ORIG-GUID: 893szW7pRUCkSQ_TbMor4zMQylclNeuM X-Proofpoint-GUID: JtejvuMNtDb0BQXGHDxc4wZ6LIxz4gmc X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=baseguard engine=ICAP:2.0.205,Aquarius:18.0.816,Hydra:6.0.425,FMLib:17.11.62.513 definitions=2022-02-03_05,2022-02-03_01,2021-12-02_01 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_notspam policy=outbound score=0 lowpriorityscore=0 clxscore=1015 impostorscore=0 phishscore=0 suspectscore=0 spamscore=0 mlxlogscore=999 malwarescore=0 bulkscore=0 priorityscore=1501 mlxscore=0 adultscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.12.0-2201110000 definitions=main-2202030096 Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: kvm@vger.kernel.org On Thu, 3 Feb 2022 16:23:23 +0100 Janosch Frank wrote: > On 2/3/22 14:37, Claudio Imbrenda wrote: > > On Thu, 3 Feb 2022 09:45:56 +0100 > > Janosch Frank wrote: > > > >> On 1/28/22 19:54, Claudio Imbrenda wrote: > >>> On s390x there are no guarantees about the CPU addresses, except that > >>> they shall be unique. This means that in some environments, it's > >>> possible that there is no match between the CPU address and its > >>> position (index) in the list of available CPUs returned by the system. > >> > >> While I support this patch set I've yet to find an environment where > >> this gave me headaches. > >> > >>> > >>> This series fixes a small bug in the SMP initialization code, adds a > >>> guarantee that the boot CPU will always have index 0, and introduces > >>> some functions to allow tests to use CPU indexes instead of using > >>> hardcoded CPU addresses. This will allow the tests to run successfully > >>> in more environments (e.g. z/VM, LPAR). > >> > >> I'm wondering if we should do it the other way round and make the smp_* > >> functions take a idx instead of a cpu addr. The only instance where this > >> gets a bit ugly is the sigp calls which we would also need to convert. > > > > yes, in fact this is something I was already planning to do :) > > Do you want to add that in a v2 to reduce the additional churn? ok > > > > > for sigp, we can either convert, or add a wrapper with idx. > > How about adding a wrapper to smp.c? > > smp_cpu_sigp() > smp_cpu_sigp_retry() I was actually thinking about sigp_idx, but I like your names better > > > That would fall in line with the naming of the smp functions and it's > clear that we refer to a specific cpu from the smp lib. > > We can then leave the sigp.h functions as is so Nico can use them for > the invalid addr tests. yes, a "raw" sigp function should definitely stay there > > > > >> > >>> Some existing tests are adapted to take advantage of the new > >>> functionalities. > >>> > >>> Claudio Imbrenda (5): > >>> lib: s390x: smp: add functions to work with CPU indexes > >>> lib: s390x: smp: guarantee that boot CPU has index 0 > >>> s390x: smp: avoid hardcoded CPU addresses > >>> s390x: firq: avoid hardcoded CPU addresses > >>> s390x: skrf: avoid hardcoded CPU addresses > >>> > >>> lib/s390x/smp.h | 2 ++ > >>> lib/s390x/smp.c | 28 ++++++++++++----- > >>> s390x/firq.c | 17 +++++----- > >>> s390x/skrf.c | 8 +++-- > >>> s390x/smp.c | 83 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++----------------------- > >>> 5 files changed, 79 insertions(+), 59 deletions(-) > >>> > >> > > >