From: Claudio Imbrenda <imbrenda@linux.ibm.com>
To: Nina Schoetterl-Glausch <nsg@linux.ibm.com>
Cc: Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@linux.ibm.com>,
Janosch Frank <frankja@linux.ibm.com>,
Heiko Carstens <hca@linux.ibm.com>,
Alexander Gordeev <agordeev@linux.ibm.com>,
Vasily Gorbik <gor@linux.ibm.com>,
David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kvm@vger.kernel.org,
linux-s390@vger.kernel.org,
Cornelia Huck <cornelia.huck@de.ibm.com>,
Sven Schnelle <svens@linux.ibm.com>,
Michael Mueller <mimu@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
David Hildenbrand <dahi@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/4] KVM: s390: Minor refactor of base/ext facility lists
Date: Fri, 3 Nov 2023 19:32:54 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20231103193254.7deef2e5@p-imbrenda> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20231103173008.630217-5-nsg@linux.ibm.com>
On Fri, 3 Nov 2023 18:30:08 +0100
Nina Schoetterl-Glausch <nsg@linux.ibm.com> wrote:
> Directly use the size of the arrays instead of going through the
> indirection of kvm_s390_fac_size().
> Don't use magic number for the number of entries in the non hypervisor
> managed facility bit mask list.
> Make the constraint of that number on kvm_s390_fac_base obvious.
> Get rid of implicit double anding of stfle_fac_list.
>
> Signed-off-by: Nina Schoetterl-Glausch <nsg@linux.ibm.com>
> ---
>
>
> I found it confusing before and think it's nicer this way but
> it might be needless churn.
some things are probably overkill
>
>
> arch/s390/kvm/kvm-s390.c | 44 +++++++++++++++++-----------------------
> 1 file changed, 19 insertions(+), 25 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/arch/s390/kvm/kvm-s390.c b/arch/s390/kvm/kvm-s390.c
> index b3f17e014cab..e00ab2f38c89 100644
> --- a/arch/s390/kvm/kvm-s390.c
> +++ b/arch/s390/kvm/kvm-s390.c
> @@ -217,33 +217,25 @@ static int async_destroy = 1;
> module_param(async_destroy, int, 0444);
> MODULE_PARM_DESC(async_destroy, "Asynchronous destroy for protected guests");
>
> -/*
> - * For now we handle at most 16 double words as this is what the s390 base
> - * kernel handles and stores in the prefix page. If we ever need to go beyond
> - * this, this requires changes to code, but the external uapi can stay.
> - */
> -#define SIZE_INTERNAL 16
> -
> +#define HMFAI_DWORDS 16
> /*
> * Base feature mask that defines default mask for facilities. Consists of the
> * defines in FACILITIES_KVM and the non-hypervisor managed bits.
> */
> -static unsigned long kvm_s390_fac_base[SIZE_INTERNAL] = { FACILITIES_KVM };
> +static unsigned long kvm_s390_fac_base[HMFAI_DWORDS] = { FACILITIES_KVM };
> +static_assert(ARRAY_SIZE(((long[]){ FACILITIES_KVM })) <= HMFAI_DWORDS);
> +static_assert(ARRAY_SIZE(kvm_s390_fac_base) <= S390_ARCH_FAC_MASK_SIZE_U64);
> +static_assert(ARRAY_SIZE(kvm_s390_fac_base) <= S390_ARCH_FAC_LIST_SIZE_U64);
> +static_assert(ARRAY_SIZE(kvm_s390_fac_base) <= ARRAY_SIZE(stfle_fac_list));
> +
> /*
> * Extended feature mask. Consists of the defines in FACILITIES_KVM_CPUMODEL
> * and defines the facilities that can be enabled via a cpu model.
> */
> -static unsigned long kvm_s390_fac_ext[SIZE_INTERNAL] = { FACILITIES_KVM_CPUMODEL };
> -
> -static unsigned long kvm_s390_fac_size(void)
> -{
> - BUILD_BUG_ON(SIZE_INTERNAL > S390_ARCH_FAC_MASK_SIZE_U64);
> - BUILD_BUG_ON(SIZE_INTERNAL > S390_ARCH_FAC_LIST_SIZE_U64);
> - BUILD_BUG_ON(SIZE_INTERNAL * sizeof(unsigned long) >
> - sizeof(stfle_fac_list));
> -
> - return SIZE_INTERNAL;
> -}
> +static const unsigned long kvm_s390_fac_ext[] = { FACILITIES_KVM_CPUMODEL };
this was sized to [SIZE_INTERNAL], now it doesn't have a fixed size. is
this intentional?
> +static_assert(ARRAY_SIZE(kvm_s390_fac_ext) <= S390_ARCH_FAC_MASK_SIZE_U64);
> +static_assert(ARRAY_SIZE(kvm_s390_fac_ext) <= S390_ARCH_FAC_LIST_SIZE_U64);
> +static_assert(ARRAY_SIZE(kvm_s390_fac_ext) <= ARRAY_SIZE(stfle_fac_list));
>
> /* available cpu features supported by kvm */
> static DECLARE_BITMAP(kvm_s390_available_cpu_feat, KVM_S390_VM_CPU_FEAT_NR_BITS);
> @@ -3341,13 +3333,16 @@ int kvm_arch_init_vm(struct kvm *kvm, unsigned long type)
> kvm->arch.sie_page2->kvm = kvm;
> kvm->arch.model.fac_list = kvm->arch.sie_page2->fac_list;
>
> - for (i = 0; i < kvm_s390_fac_size(); i++) {
> + for (i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(kvm_s390_fac_base); i++) {
> kvm->arch.model.fac_mask[i] = stfle_fac_list[i] &
> - (kvm_s390_fac_base[i] |
> - kvm_s390_fac_ext[i]);
> + kvm_s390_fac_base[i];
> kvm->arch.model.fac_list[i] = stfle_fac_list[i] &
> kvm_s390_fac_base[i];
> }
> + for (i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(kvm_s390_fac_ext); i++) {
> + kvm->arch.model.fac_mask[i] |= stfle_fac_list[i] &
> + kvm_s390_fac_ext[i];
> + }
I like it better when it's all in one place, instead of having two loops
> kvm->arch.model.subfuncs = kvm_s390_available_subfunc;
>
> /* we are always in czam mode - even on pre z14 machines */
> @@ -5859,9 +5854,8 @@ static int __init kvm_s390_init(void)
> return -EINVAL;
> }
>
> - for (i = 0; i < 16; i++)
> - kvm_s390_fac_base[i] |=
> - stfle_fac_list[i] & nonhyp_mask(i);
> + for (i = 0; i < HMFAI_DWORDS; i++)
> + kvm_s390_fac_base[i] |= nonhyp_mask(i);
where did the stfle_fac_list[i] go?
>
> r = __kvm_s390_init();
> if (r)
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2023-11-03 18:53 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 16+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2023-11-03 17:30 [PATCH 0/4] KVM: s390: Fix minor bugs in STFLE shadowing Nina Schoetterl-Glausch
2023-11-03 17:30 ` [PATCH 1/4] KVM: s390: vsie: Fix STFLE interpretive execution identification Nina Schoetterl-Glausch
2023-11-03 18:12 ` Claudio Imbrenda
2023-11-03 18:32 ` David Hildenbrand
2023-11-03 17:30 ` [PATCH 2/4] KVM: s390: vsie: Fix length of facility list shadowed Nina Schoetterl-Glausch
2023-11-03 18:34 ` David Hildenbrand
2023-11-06 13:06 ` Nina Schoetterl-Glausch
2023-11-06 13:43 ` Heiko Carstens
2023-11-03 17:30 ` [PATCH 3/4] KVM: s390: cpu model: Use previously unused constant Nina Schoetterl-Glausch
2023-11-03 18:36 ` David Hildenbrand
2023-11-03 18:41 ` David Hildenbrand
2023-11-06 11:00 ` Nina Schoetterl-Glausch
2023-11-03 17:30 ` [PATCH 4/4] KVM: s390: Minor refactor of base/ext facility lists Nina Schoetterl-Glausch
2023-11-03 18:32 ` Claudio Imbrenda [this message]
2023-11-06 11:38 ` Nina Schoetterl-Glausch
2023-11-06 12:18 ` Claudio Imbrenda
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=20231103193254.7deef2e5@p-imbrenda \
--to=imbrenda@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=agordeev@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=borntraeger@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=cornelia.huck@de.ibm.com \
--cc=dahi@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=david@redhat.com \
--cc=frankja@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=gor@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=hca@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=kvm@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-s390@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mimu@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=nsg@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=svens@linux.ibm.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