Re: [PATCH v10 2/3] KVM: s390: guest support for topology function

Pierre Morel
2022-06-27T13:26:21Z

On 6/24/22 08:22, Janosch Frank wrote:
> On 6/20/22 14:54, Pierre Morel wrote:
>> We report a topology change to the guest for any CPU hotplug.
>>
>> The reporting to the guest is done using the Multiprocessor
>> Topology-Change-Report (MTCR) bit of the utility entry in the guest's
>> SCA which will be cleared during the interpretation of PTF.
>>
>> On every vCPU creation we set the MCTR bit to let the guest know the
>> next time he uses the PTF with command 2 instruction that the
>> topology changed and that he should use the STSI(15.1.x) instruction
>> to get the topology details.
>>
>> STSI(15.1.x) gives information on the CPU configuration topology.
>> Let's accept the interception of STSI with the function code 15 and
>> let the userland part of the hypervisor handle it when userland
>> support the CPU Topology facility.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Pierre Morel <pmorel@linux.ibm.com>
>> ---
>>   arch/s390/include/asm/kvm_host.h | 11 ++++++++---
>>   arch/s390/kvm/kvm-s390.c         | 27 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
>>   arch/s390/kvm/priv.c             | 15 +++++++++++----
>>   arch/s390/kvm/vsie.c             |  3 +++
>>   4 files changed, 48 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/arch/s390/include/asm/kvm_host.h
>> b/arch/s390/include/asm/kvm_host.h
>> index 766028d54a3e..bb54196d4ed6 100644
>> --- a/arch/s390/include/asm/kvm_host.h
>> +++ b/arch/s390/include/asm/kvm_host.h
>> @@ -97,15 +97,19 @@ struct bsca_block {
>>       union ipte_control ipte_control;
>>       __u64    reserved[5];
>>       __u64    mcn;
>> -    __u64    reserved2;
>> +#define SCA_UTILITY_MTCR    0x8000
>
> I'm not too happy having this in the bsca but not in the esca. I'd
> suggest putting it outside the structs or to go with my next suggestion:
>
> Just make it a bit field struct and make that a member in bsca/esca.
> No messing about with ANDing, ORing etc.
>
> It's unfortunate that we only use one bit in that field but I'd still
> find it easier to read.

OK

>
>> +    __u16    utility;
>> +    __u8    reserved2[6];
>>       struct bsca_entry cpu[KVM_S390_BSCA_CPU_SLOTS];
>>   };
>>   struct esca_block {
>>       union ipte_control ipte_control;
>> -    __u64   reserved1[7];
>> +    __u64   reserved1[6];
>> +    __u16    utility;
>> +    __u8    reserved2[6];
>>       __u64   mcn[4];
>> -    __u64   reserved2[20];
>> +    __u64   reserved3[20];
>>       struct esca_entry cpu[KVM_S390_ESCA_CPU_SLOTS];
>>   };
>> @@ -249,6 +253,7 @@ struct kvm_s390_sie_block {
>>   #define ECB_SPECI    0x08
>>   #define ECB_SRSI    0x04
>>   #define ECB_HOSTPROTINT    0x02
>> +#define ECB_PTF        0x01
>>       __u8    ecb;            /* 0x0061 */
>>   #define ECB2_CMMA    0x80
>>   #define ECB2_IEP    0x20
>> diff --git a/arch/s390/kvm/kvm-s390.c b/arch/s390/kvm/kvm-s390.c
>> index 8fcb56141689..95b96019ca8e 100644
>> --- a/arch/s390/kvm/kvm-s390.c
>> +++ b/arch/s390/kvm/kvm-s390.c
>> @@ -1691,6 +1691,25 @@ static int kvm_s390_get_cpu_model(struct kvm
>> *kvm, struct kvm_device_attr *attr)
>>       return ret;
>>   }
>> +/**
>> + * kvm_s390_sca_set_mtcr
>> + * @kvm: guest KVM description
>> + *
>> + * Is only relevant if the topology facility is present,
>> + * the caller should check KVM facility 11
>
> I'm not sure that this statement make sense since you set the mctr in
> kvm_s390_vcpu_setup() unconditionally and don't check stfle 11.
>
> I think we can remove the second line from this.
>
>> + *
>> + * Updates the Multiprocessor Topology-Change-Report to signal
>> + * the guest with a topology change.
>
> Please swap those two comments
>
>> + */
>> +static void kvm_s390_sca_set_mtcr(struct kvm *kvm)
>> +{
>> +    struct bsca_block *sca = kvm->arch.sca; /* SCA version doesn't
>> matter */
>
> Please put the comment above the statement and maybe extend it a bit:
> SCA version doesn't matter, the utility field always has the same offset.
>
>> +
>> +    ipte_lock(kvm);
>> +    sca->utility |= SCA_UTILITY_MTCR;
>> +    ipte_unlock(kvm);
>> +}
>> +
>>   static int kvm_s390_vm_set_attr(struct kvm *kvm, struct
>> kvm_device_attr *attr)
>>   {
>>       int ret;
>> @@ -3143,7 +3162,6 @@ __u64 kvm_s390_get_cpu_timer(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
>>   void kvm_arch_vcpu_load(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, int cpu)
>>   {
>> -
>
> Please remove that change
>
>>       gmap_enable(vcpu->arch.enabled_gmap);
>>       kvm_s390_set_cpuflags(vcpu, CPUSTAT_RUNNING);
>>       if (vcpu->arch.cputm_enabled && !is_vcpu_idle(vcpu))
>> @@ -3272,6 +3290,11 @@ static int kvm_s390_vcpu_setup(struct kvm_vcpu
>> *vcpu)
>>           vcpu->arch.sie_block->ecb |= ECB_HOSTPROTINT;
>>       if (test_kvm_facility(vcpu->kvm, 9))
>>           vcpu->arch.sie_block->ecb |= ECB_SRSI;
>> +
>> +    /* PTF needs guest facilities to enable interpretation */
>> +    if (test_kvm_facility(vcpu->kvm, 11))
>> +        vcpu->arch.sie_block->ecb |= ECB_PTF;
>> +
>>       if (test_kvm_facility(vcpu->kvm, 73))
>>           vcpu->arch.sie_block->ecb |= ECB_TE;
>>       if (!kvm_is_ucontrol(vcpu->kvm))
>> @@ -3403,6 +3426,8 @@ int kvm_arch_vcpu_create(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
>>       rc = kvm_s390_vcpu_setup(vcpu);
>>       if (rc)
>>           goto out_ucontrol_uninit;
>> +
>> +    kvm_s390_sca_set_mtcr(vcpu->kvm);
>>       return 0;
>>   out_ucontrol_uninit:
>> diff --git a/arch/s390/kvm/priv.c b/arch/s390/kvm/priv.c
>> index 12c464c7cddf..77a692238585 100644
>> --- a/arch/s390/kvm/priv.c
>> +++ b/arch/s390/kvm/priv.c
>> @@ -873,10 +873,13 @@ static int handle_stsi(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
>>       if (vcpu->arch.sie_block->gpsw.mask & PSW_MASK_PSTATE)
>>           return kvm_s390_inject_program_int(vcpu, PGM_PRIVILEGED_OP);
>> -    if (fc > 3) {
>> -        kvm_s390_set_psw_cc(vcpu, 3);
>> -        return 0;
>> -    }
>> +    /* Bailout forbidden function codes */
>> +    if (fc > 3 && fc != 15)
>> +        goto out_no_data;
>> +
>> +    /* fc 15 is provided with PTF/CPU topology support */
>> +    if (fc == 15 && !test_kvm_facility(vcpu->kvm, 11))
>> +        goto out_no_data;
>>       if (vcpu->run->s.regs.gprs[0] & 0x0fffff00
>>           || vcpu->run->s.regs.gprs[1] & 0xffff0000)
>> @@ -910,6 +913,10 @@ static int handle_stsi(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
>>               goto out_no_data;
>>           handle_stsi_3_2_2(vcpu, (void *) mem);
>>           break;
>> +    case 15:
>> +        trace_kvm_s390_handle_stsi(vcpu, fc, sel1, sel2, operand2);
>> +        insert_stsi_usr_data(vcpu, operand2, ar, fc, sel1, sel2);
>> +        return -EREMOTE;
>>       }
>>       if (kvm_s390_pv_cpu_is_protected(vcpu)) {
>>           memcpy((void *)sida_origin(vcpu->arch.sie_block), (void *)mem,
>> diff --git a/arch/s390/kvm/vsie.c b/arch/s390/kvm/vsie.c
>> index dada78b92691..4f4fee697550 100644
>> --- a/arch/s390/kvm/vsie.c
>> +++ b/arch/s390/kvm/vsie.c
>> @@ -503,6 +503,9 @@ static int shadow_scb(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu,
>> struct vsie_page *vsie_page)
>>       /* Host-protection-interruption introduced with ESOP */
>>       if (test_kvm_cpu_feat(vcpu->kvm, KVM_S390_VM_CPU_FEAT_ESOP))
>>           scb_s->ecb |= scb_o->ecb & ECB_HOSTPROTINT;
>> +    /* CPU Topology */
>
> Maybe also add:
> This facility only uses the utility field of the SCA and none of the cpu
> entries that are problematic with the other interpretation facilities so
> we can pass it through.
>
>> +    if (test_kvm_facility(vcpu->kvm, 11))
>> +        scb_s->ecb |= scb_o->ecb & ECB_PTF;
>>       /* transactional execution */
>>       if (test_kvm_facility(vcpu->kvm, 73) && wants_tx) {
>>           /* remap the prefix is tx is toggled on */
>

OK with all comments,
I make the changes.

Thanks,
Pierre

--
Pierre Morel
IBM Lab Boeblingen