From: Claudio Imbrenda <imbrenda@linux.ibm.com>
To: Pierre Morel <pmorel@linux.ibm.com>
Cc: linux-s390@vger.kernel.org, frankja@linux.ibm.com,
thuth@redhat.com, kvm@vger.kernel.org, cohuck@redhat.com,
david@redhat.com, nrb@linux.ibm.com
Subject: Re: [kvm-unit-tests PATCH v4 2/4] s390x: stsi: Define vm_is_kvm to be used in different tests
Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2022 12:18:10 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20220215121810.4e6cc5be@p-imbrenda> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20220208132709.48291-3-pmorel@linux.ibm.com>
On Tue, 8 Feb 2022 14:27:07 +0100
Pierre Morel <pmorel@linux.ibm.com> wrote:
> We need in several tests to check if the VM we are running in
> is KVM.
> Let's add the test.
>
> To check the VM type we use the STSI 3.2.2 instruction, let's
> define it's response structure in a central header.
>
> Signed-off-by: Pierre Morel <pmorel@linux.ibm.com>
> ---
> lib/s390x/stsi.h | 32 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> lib/s390x/vm.c | 56 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--
> lib/s390x/vm.h | 3 +++
> s390x/stsi.c | 23 ++------------------
> 4 files changed, 91 insertions(+), 23 deletions(-)
> create mode 100644 lib/s390x/stsi.h
>
> diff --git a/lib/s390x/stsi.h b/lib/s390x/stsi.h
> new file mode 100644
> index 00000000..9b40664f
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/lib/s390x/stsi.h
> @@ -0,0 +1,32 @@
> +/* SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0-or-later */
> +/*
> + * Structures used to Store System Information
> + *
> + * Copyright IBM Corp. 2022
> + */
> +
> +#ifndef _S390X_STSI_H_
> +#define _S390X_STSI_H_
> +
> +struct sysinfo_3_2_2 {
> + uint8_t reserved[31];
> + uint8_t count;
> + struct {
> + uint8_t reserved2[4];
> + uint16_t total_cpus;
> + uint16_t conf_cpus;
> + uint16_t standby_cpus;
> + uint16_t reserved_cpus;
> + uint8_t name[8];
> + uint32_t caf;
> + uint8_t cpi[16];
> + uint8_t reserved5[3];
> + uint8_t ext_name_encoding;
> + uint32_t reserved3;
> + uint8_t uuid[16];
> + } vm[8];
> + uint8_t reserved4[1504];
> + uint8_t ext_names[8][256];
> +};
> +
> +#endif /* _S390X_STSI_H_ */
> diff --git a/lib/s390x/vm.c b/lib/s390x/vm.c
> index a5b92863..38886b76 100644
> --- a/lib/s390x/vm.c
> +++ b/lib/s390x/vm.c
> @@ -12,6 +12,7 @@
> #include <alloc_page.h>
> #include <asm/arch_def.h>
> #include "vm.h"
> +#include "stsi.h"
>
> /**
> * Detect whether we are running with TCG (instead of KVM)
> @@ -26,9 +27,13 @@ bool vm_is_tcg(void)
> if (initialized)
> return is_tcg;
>
> - buf = alloc_page();
> - if (!buf)
> + if (!vm_is_vm()) {
> + initialized = true;
> return false;
> + }
> +
> + buf = alloc_page();
> + assert(buf);
>
> if (stsi(buf, 1, 1, 1))
> goto out;
> @@ -43,3 +48,50 @@ out:
> free_page(buf);
> return is_tcg;
> }
> +
> +/**
> + * Detect whether we are running with KVM
> + */
> +
> +bool vm_is_kvm(void)
I think this is too messy
I think a cleaner approach would be to have one "detect_environment"
function to call stsi and find out which environment we are running on.
then the various vm_is_* would just be something like
bool vm_is_kvm(void)
{
return detect_environment() == VM_IS_KVM;
}
obviously the detect_environment function would call stsi only once and
then cache the result.
bonus, we could make that function public too, so e.g. a testcase could
do a switch, instead of having to do a series of nested ifs
> +{
> + /* EBCDIC for "KVM/" */
> + const uint8_t kvm_ebcdic[] = { 0xd2, 0xe5, 0xd4, 0x61 };
> + static bool initialized;
> + static bool is_kvm;
> + struct sysinfo_3_2_2 *stsi_322;
> +
> + if (initialized)
> + return is_kvm;
> +
> + if (!vm_is_vm() || vm_is_tcg()) {
> + initialized = true;
> + return is_kvm;
> + }
> +
> + stsi_322 = alloc_page();
> + assert(stsi_322);
> +
> + if (stsi(stsi_322, 3, 2, 2))
> + goto out;
> +
> + /*
> + * If the manufacturer string is "KVM/" in EBCDIC, then we
> + * are on KVM.
> + */
> + is_kvm = !memcmp(&stsi_322->vm[0].cpi, kvm_ebcdic, sizeof(kvm_ebcdic));
> + initialized = true;
> +out:
> + free_page(stsi_322);
> + return is_kvm;
> +}
> +
> +bool vm_is_lpar(void)
> +{
> + return stsi_get_fc() == 2;
> +}
> +
> +bool vm_is_vm(void)
is it enough to call it vm? maybe zvm? I don't have a strong opinion,
though
> +{
> + return stsi_get_fc() == 3;
> +}
> diff --git a/lib/s390x/vm.h b/lib/s390x/vm.h
> index 7abba0cc..3aaf76af 100644
> --- a/lib/s390x/vm.h
> +++ b/lib/s390x/vm.h
> @@ -9,5 +9,8 @@
> #define _S390X_VM_H_
>
> bool vm_is_tcg(void);
> +bool vm_is_kvm(void);
> +bool vm_is_vm(void);
> +bool vm_is_lpar(void);
>
> #endif /* _S390X_VM_H_ */
> diff --git a/s390x/stsi.c b/s390x/stsi.c
> index 391f8849..1ed045e2 100644
> --- a/s390x/stsi.c
> +++ b/s390x/stsi.c
> @@ -13,27 +13,8 @@
> #include <asm/asm-offsets.h>
> #include <asm/interrupt.h>
> #include <smp.h>
> +#include "stsi.h"
>
> -struct stsi_322 {
> - uint8_t reserved[31];
> - uint8_t count;
> - struct {
> - uint8_t reserved2[4];
> - uint16_t total_cpus;
> - uint16_t conf_cpus;
> - uint16_t standby_cpus;
> - uint16_t reserved_cpus;
> - uint8_t name[8];
> - uint32_t caf;
> - uint8_t cpi[16];
> - uint8_t reserved5[3];
> - uint8_t ext_name_encoding;
> - uint32_t reserved3;
> - uint8_t uuid[16];
> - } vm[8];
> - uint8_t reserved4[1504];
> - uint8_t ext_names[8][256];
> -};
> static uint8_t pagebuf[PAGE_SIZE * 2] __attribute__((aligned(PAGE_SIZE * 2)));
>
> static void test_specs(void)
> @@ -91,7 +72,7 @@ static void test_3_2_2(void)
> /* EBCDIC for "KVM/" */
> const uint8_t cpi_kvm[] = { 0xd2, 0xe5, 0xd4, 0x61 };
> const char vm_name_ext[] = "kvm-unit-test";
> - struct stsi_322 *data = (void *)pagebuf;
> + struct sysinfo_3_2_2 *data = (void *)pagebuf;
>
> report_prefix_push("3.2.2");
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2022-02-15 11:18 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 19+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2022-02-08 13:27 [kvm-unit-tests PATCH v4 0/4] S390x: CPU Topology Information Pierre Morel
2022-02-08 13:27 ` [kvm-unit-tests PATCH v4 1/4] s390x: lib: Add SCLP toplogy nested level Pierre Morel
2022-02-08 13:27 ` [kvm-unit-tests PATCH v4 2/4] s390x: stsi: Define vm_is_kvm to be used in different tests Pierre Morel
2022-02-08 15:31 ` Janosch Frank
2022-02-08 15:43 ` Nico Boehr
2022-02-14 8:01 ` Pierre Morel
2022-02-14 9:18 ` Pierre Morel
2022-02-08 15:35 ` Nico Boehr
2022-02-14 7:55 ` Pierre Morel
2022-02-15 11:18 ` Claudio Imbrenda [this message]
2022-02-08 13:27 ` [kvm-unit-tests PATCH v4 3/4] s390x: topology: Check the Perform Topology Function Pierre Morel
2022-02-09 11:37 ` Nico Boehr
2022-02-14 9:21 ` Pierre Morel
2022-02-15 8:29 ` Pierre Morel
2022-02-15 8:50 ` Pierre Morel
2022-02-15 9:21 ` Pierre Morel
2022-02-15 9:44 ` Pierre Morel
2022-02-15 10:28 ` Nico Boehr
2022-02-08 13:27 ` [kvm-unit-tests PATCH v4 4/4] s390x: topology: Checking Configuration Topology Information Pierre Morel
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20220215121810.4e6cc5be@p-imbrenda \
--to=imbrenda@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=cohuck@redhat.com \
--cc=david@redhat.com \
--cc=frankja@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=kvm@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-s390@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=nrb@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=pmorel@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=thuth@redhat.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox