From: Janosch Frank <frankja@linux.ibm.com>
To: David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>, kvm@vger.kernel.org
Cc: thuth@redhat.com, linux-s390@vger.kernel.org,
borntraeger@de.ibm.com, cohuck@redhat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 08/10] s390x: smp: Wait for sigp completion
Date: Thu, 30 Apr 2020 09:40:18 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <68e16d1a-8990-0160-307d-93e870338879@linux.ibm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <6fb43d45-952e-f66b-a0b2-19d8c3f44cd5@redhat.com>
[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 4188 bytes --]
On 4/29/20 5:15 PM, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> On 29.04.20 16:35, Janosch Frank wrote:
>> Sigp orders are not necessarily finished when the processor finished
>> the sigp instruction. We need to poll if the order has been finished
>> before we continue.
>>
>> For (re)start and stop we already use sigp sense running and sigp
>> sense loops. But we still lack completion checks for stop and store
>> status, as well as the cpu resets.
>>
>> Let's add them.
>>
>> KVM currently needs a workaround for the stop and store status test,
>> since KVM's SIGP Sense implementation doesn't honor pending SIGPs at
>> it should. Hopefully we can fix that in the future.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Janosch Frank <frankja@linux.ibm.com>
>> Reviewed-by: Cornelia Huck <cohuck@redhat.com>
>> ---
>> lib/s390x/smp.c | 9 +++++++++
>> lib/s390x/smp.h | 1 +
>> s390x/smp.c | 12 ++++++++++--
>> 3 files changed, 20 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/lib/s390x/smp.c b/lib/s390x/smp.c
>> index 6ef0335..8628a3d 100644
>> --- a/lib/s390x/smp.c
>> +++ b/lib/s390x/smp.c
>> @@ -49,6 +49,14 @@ struct cpu *smp_cpu_from_addr(uint16_t addr)
>> return NULL;
>> }
>>
>> +void smp_cpu_wait_for_completion(uint16_t addr)
>> +{
>> + uint32_t status;
>> +
>> + /* Loops when cc == 2, i.e. when the cpu is busy with a sigp order */
>> + sigp_retry(1, SIGP_SENSE, 0, &status);
>> +}
>> +
>> bool smp_cpu_stopped(uint16_t addr)
>> {
>> uint32_t status;
>> @@ -100,6 +108,7 @@ int smp_cpu_stop_store_status(uint16_t addr)
>>
>> spin_lock(&lock);
>> rc = smp_cpu_stop_nolock(addr, true);
>> + smp_cpu_wait_for_completion(addr);
>> spin_unlock(&lock);
>> return rc;
>> }
>> diff --git a/lib/s390x/smp.h b/lib/s390x/smp.h
>> index ce63a89..a8b98c0 100644
>> --- a/lib/s390x/smp.h
>> +++ b/lib/s390x/smp.h
>> @@ -45,6 +45,7 @@ int smp_cpu_restart(uint16_t addr);
>> int smp_cpu_start(uint16_t addr, struct psw psw);
>> int smp_cpu_stop(uint16_t addr);
>> int smp_cpu_stop_store_status(uint16_t addr);
>> +void smp_cpu_wait_for_completion(uint16_t addr);
>> int smp_cpu_destroy(uint16_t addr);
>> int smp_cpu_setup(uint16_t addr, struct psw psw);
>> void smp_teardown(void);
>> diff --git a/s390x/smp.c b/s390x/smp.c
>> index c7ff0ee..bad2131 100644
>> --- a/s390x/smp.c
>> +++ b/s390x/smp.c
>> @@ -75,7 +75,12 @@ static void test_stop_store_status(void)
>> lc->prefix_sa = 0;
>> lc->grs_sa[15] = 0;
>> smp_cpu_stop_store_status(1);
>> - mb();
>> + /*
>> + * This loop is workaround for KVM not reporting cc 2 for SIGP
>> + * sense if a stop and store status is pending.
>> + */
>> + while (!lc->prefix_sa)
>> + mb();
>> report(lc->prefix_sa == (uint32_t)(uintptr_t)cpu->lowcore, "prefix");
>> report(lc->grs_sa[15], "stack");
>> report(smp_cpu_stopped(1), "cpu stopped");
>> @@ -85,7 +90,8 @@ static void test_stop_store_status(void)
>> lc->prefix_sa = 0;
>> lc->grs_sa[15] = 0;
>> smp_cpu_stop_store_status(1);
>> - mb();
>> + while (!lc->prefix_sa)
>> + mb();
>> report(lc->prefix_sa == (uint32_t)(uintptr_t)cpu->lowcore, "prefix");
>> report(lc->grs_sa[15], "stack");
>> report_prefix_pop();
>> @@ -215,6 +221,7 @@ static void test_reset_initial(void)
>> wait_for_flag();
>>
>> sigp_retry(1, SIGP_INITIAL_CPU_RESET, 0, NULL);
>> + smp_cpu_wait_for_completion(1);
>
> ^ is this really helpful? The next order already properly synchronizes, no?
Well, the next order isn't issued with sigp_retry, so we could actually
get a cc 2 on the store. I need a cpu stopped loop here as well.
>
>> sigp(1, SIGP_STORE_STATUS_AT_ADDRESS, (uintptr_t)status, NULL);
>>
>> report_prefix_push("clear");
>> @@ -265,6 +272,7 @@ static void test_reset(void)
>> smp_cpu_start(1, psw);
>>
>> sigp_retry(1, SIGP_CPU_RESET, 0, NULL);
>> + smp_cpu_wait_for_completion(1);
>
> Isn't this racy for KVM as well?
>
> I would have expected a loop until it is actually stopped.
I'd add a loop with a comment, but also keep the wait for completion.
>
>> report(smp_cpu_stopped(1), "cpu stopped");
>>
>> set_flag(0);
>>
>
>
[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-04-30 7:40 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 17+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-04-29 14:35 [PATCH v3 00/10] s390x: smp: Improve smp code part 2 Janosch Frank
2020-04-29 14:35 ` [PATCH v3 01/10] s390x: smp: Test all CRs on initial reset Janosch Frank
2020-04-29 14:35 ` [PATCH v3 02/10] s390x: smp: Dirty fpc before initial reset test Janosch Frank
2020-04-29 14:35 ` [PATCH v3 03/10] s390x: smp: Test stop and store status on a running and stopped cpu Janosch Frank
2020-04-29 14:35 ` [PATCH v3 04/10] s390x: smp: Test local interrupts after cpu reset Janosch Frank
2020-04-29 15:12 ` David Hildenbrand
2020-04-29 14:35 ` [PATCH v3 05/10] s390x: smp: Loop if secondary cpu returns into cpu setup again Janosch Frank
2020-04-29 15:12 ` David Hildenbrand
2020-04-29 14:35 ` [PATCH v3 06/10] s390x: smp: Remove unneeded cpu loops Janosch Frank
2020-04-29 14:35 ` [PATCH v3 07/10] s390x: smp: Use full PSW to bringup new cpu Janosch Frank
2020-04-29 14:35 ` [PATCH v3 08/10] s390x: smp: Wait for sigp completion Janosch Frank
2020-04-29 15:15 ` David Hildenbrand
2020-04-30 7:40 ` Janosch Frank [this message]
2020-04-30 7:42 ` David Hildenbrand
2020-04-29 14:35 ` [PATCH v3 09/10] s390x: smp: Add restart when running test Janosch Frank
2020-04-29 14:35 ` [PATCH v3 10/10] s390x: Fix library constant definitions Janosch Frank
2020-04-30 15:00 ` [PATCH v3 00/10] s390x: smp: Improve smp code part 2 David Hildenbrand
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=68e16d1a-8990-0160-307d-93e870338879@linux.ibm.com \
--to=frankja@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=borntraeger@de.ibm.com \
--cc=cohuck@redhat.com \
--cc=david@redhat.com \
--cc=kvm@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-s390@vger.kernel.org \
--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