public inbox for kvm@vger.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
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 --]

  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