public inbox for linux-s390@vger.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Janosch Frank <frankja@linux.ibm.com>
To: Thomas Huth <thuth@redhat.com>, kvm@vger.kernel.org
Cc: linux-s390@vger.kernel.org, david@redhat.com
Subject: Re: [kvm-unit-tests PATCH 4/6] s390x: Add initial smp code
Date: Tue, 3 Sep 2019 10:10:39 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <997a7035-d6a4-de37-f9fa-2b929632854f@linux.ibm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <af43e842-9aee-9407-2a97-354efe2b81e1@redhat.com>


[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 6178 bytes --]

On 9/2/19 3:21 PM, Thomas Huth wrote:
> On 29/08/2019 14.14, Janosch Frank wrote:
>> Let's add a rudimentary SMP library, which will scan for cpus and has
>> helper functions that manage the cpu state.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Janosch Frank <frankja@linux.ibm.com>
>> ---
>>  lib/s390x/asm/arch_def.h |   8 ++
>>  lib/s390x/asm/sigp.h     |  29 ++++-
>>  lib/s390x/io.c           |   5 +-
>>  lib/s390x/sclp.h         |   1 +
>>  lib/s390x/smp.c          | 272 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>  lib/s390x/smp.h          |  51 ++++++++
>>  s390x/Makefile           |   1 +
>>  s390x/cstart64.S         |   7 +
>>  8 files changed, 368 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
>>  create mode 100644 lib/s390x/smp.c
>>  create mode 100644 lib/s390x/smp.h
>>
>> diff --git a/lib/s390x/asm/arch_def.h b/lib/s390x/asm/arch_def.h
>> index 5f8f45e..d5a7f51 100644
>> --- a/lib/s390x/asm/arch_def.h
>> +++ b/lib/s390x/asm/arch_def.h
>> @@ -157,6 +157,14 @@ struct cpuid {
>>  	uint64_t reserved : 15;
>>  };
>>  
>> +static inline unsigned short stap(void)
>> +{
>> +	unsigned short cpu_address;
>> +
>> +	asm volatile("stap %0" : "=Q" (cpu_address));
>> +	return cpu_address;
>> +}
>> +
>>  static inline int tprot(unsigned long addr)
>>  {
>>  	int cc;
>> diff --git a/lib/s390x/asm/sigp.h b/lib/s390x/asm/sigp.h
>> index fbd94fc..ce85eb7 100644
>> --- a/lib/s390x/asm/sigp.h
>> +++ b/lib/s390x/asm/sigp.h
>> @@ -46,14 +46,33 @@
>>  
>>  #ifndef __ASSEMBLER__
>>  
>> -static inline void sigp_stop(void)
>> +
>> +static inline int sigp(uint16_t addr, uint8_t order, unsigned long parm,
>> +		       uint32_t *status)
>>  {
>> -	register unsigned long status asm ("1") = 0;
>> -	register unsigned long cpu asm ("2") = 0;
>> +	register unsigned long reg1 asm ("1") = parm;
>> +	int cc;
>>  
>>  	asm volatile(
>> -		"	sigp %0,%1,0(%2)\n"
>> -		: "+d" (status)  : "d" (cpu), "d" (SIGP_STOP) : "cc");
>> +		"	sigp	%1,%2,0(%3)\n"
>> +		"	ipm	%0\n"
>> +		"	srl	%0,28\n"
>> +		: "=d" (cc), "+d" (reg1) : "d" (addr), "a" (order) : "cc");
>> +	if (status)
>> +		*status = reg1;
>> +	return cc;
>> +}
>> +
>> +static inline int sigp_retry(uint16_t addr, uint8_t order, unsigned long parm,
>> +			     uint32_t *status)
>> +{
>> +	int cc;
>> +
>> +retry:
>> +	cc = sigp(addr, order, parm, status);
>> +	if (cc == 2)
>> +		goto retry;
> 
> Please change to:
> 
> 	do {
> 		cc = sigp(addr, order, parm, status);
> 	} while (cc == 2);

Seems like I've been writing too much assembly lately to write proper
loops :)

> 
>> +	return cc;
>>  }
>>  
>>  #endif /* __ASSEMBLER__ */
> [...]
>> diff --git a/lib/s390x/smp.c b/lib/s390x/smp.c
>> new file mode 100644
>> index 0000000..b1b636a
>> --- /dev/null
>> +++ b/lib/s390x/smp.c
> [...]
>> +int smp_cpu_restart(uint16_t addr)
>> +{
>> +	int rc = 0;
>> +	struct cpu *cpu;
>> +
>> +	spin_lock(&lock);
>> +	cpu = smp_cpu_from_addr(addr);
>> +	if (!cpu) {
>> +		rc = -ENOENT;
>> +		goto out;
>> +	}
>> +
>> +	rc = sigp(cpu->addr, SIGP_RESTART, 0, NULL);
> 
> I think you could use "addr" instead of "cpu->addr" here.

Yes, if it bothers you that much :)

[...]
>> +
>> +int smp_cpu_destroy(uint16_t addr)
>> +{
>> +	struct cpu *cpu;
>> +	int rc = 0;
>> +
>> +	spin_lock(&lock);
>> +	rc = smp_cpu_stop_nolock(addr, false);
>> +	if (rc)
>> +		goto out;
>> +
>> +	cpu = smp_cpu_from_addr(addr);
>> +	free_pages(cpu->lowcore, 2 * PAGE_SIZE);
>> +	free_pages(cpu->stack, 4 * PAGE_SIZE);
> 
> Maybe do this afterwards to make sure that nobody uses a dangling pointer:
> 
> 	cpu->lowcore = cpu->stack = -1UL;
> 
> ?

Great idea

> 
>> +out:
>> +	spin_unlock(&lock);
>> +	return rc;
>> +}
>> +
>> +int smp_cpu_setup(uint16_t addr, struct psw psw)
>> +{
>> +	struct lowcore *lc;
>> +	struct cpu *cpu;
>> +	int rc = 0;
>> +
>> +	spin_lock(&lock);
>> +
>> +	if (!cpus) {
>> +		rc = -EINVAL;
>> +		goto out;
>> +	}
>> +
>> +	cpu = smp_cpu_from_addr(addr);
>> +
>> +	if (!cpu) {
>> +		rc = -ENOENT;
>> +		goto out;
>> +	}
>> +
>> +	if (cpu->active) {
>> +		rc = -EINVAL;
>> +		goto out;
>> +	}
>> +
>> +	sigp_retry(cpu->addr, SIGP_INITIAL_CPU_RESET, 0, NULL);
>> +
>> +	lc = alloc_pages(1);
>> +	cpu->lowcore = lc;
>> +	memset(lc, 0, PAGE_SIZE * 2);
>> +	sigp_retry(cpu->addr, SIGP_SET_PREFIX, (unsigned long )lc, NULL);
>> +
>> +	/* Copy all exception psws. */
>> +	memcpy(lc, cpu0->lowcore, 512);
>> +
>> +	/* Setup stack */
>> +	cpu->stack = (uint64_t *)alloc_pages(2);
>> +
>> +	/* Start without DAT and any other mask bits. */
>> +	cpu->lowcore->sw_int_grs[14] = psw.addr;
>> +	cpu->lowcore->sw_int_grs[15] = (uint64_t)cpu->stack + (PAGE_SIZE * 4) / sizeof(cpu->stack);
> 
> The end-of-stack calculation looks wrong to me. I think you either meant:
> 
>  ... = (uint64_t)(cpu->stack + (PAGE_SIZE * 4) / sizeof(*cpu->stack));
> 
> or:
> 
>  ... = (uint64_t)cpu->stack + (PAGE_SIZE * 4);

That one

> 
> ?
> 
>> +	lc->restart_new_psw.mask = 0x0000000180000000UL;
>> +	lc->restart_new_psw.addr = (unsigned long)smp_cpu_setup_state;
> 
> Maybe use "(uint64_t)" instead of "(unsigned long)"?

Sure

> 
>> +	lc->sw_int_cr0 = 0x0000000000040000UL;
>> +
>> +	/* Start processing */
>> +	cpu->active = true;
>> +	rc = sigp_retry(cpu->addr, SIGP_RESTART, 0, NULL);
> 
> Should cpu->active only be set to true if rc == 0 ?

Yes

> 
>> +out:
>> +	spin_unlock(&lock);
>> +	return rc;
>> +}
>> +
>> +/*
>> + * Disregarding state, stop all cpus that once were online except for
>> + * calling cpu.
>> + */
>> +void smp_teardown(void)
>> +{
>> +	int i = 0;
>> +	uint16_t this_cpu = stap();
>> +	struct ReadCpuInfo *info = (void *)cpu_info_buffer;
>> +
>> +	spin_lock(&lock);
>> +	for (; i < info->nr_configured; i++) {
>> +		if (cpus[i].active &&
>> +		    cpus[i].addr != this_cpu) {
>> +			sigp_retry(cpus[i].addr, SIGP_STOP, 0, NULL);
> 
> Maybe set cpus[i].active = false afterwards ?

calloc does a 0 memset
But to mirror the boot cpu case, I added it.

> 
>> +		}
>> +	}
>> +	spin_unlock(&lock);
>> +}
> 
>  Thomas
> 



[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]

  reply	other threads:[~2019-09-03  8:10 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 19+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2019-08-29 12:14 [kvm-unit-tests PATCH 0/6] s390x: Add multiboot and smp Janosch Frank
2019-08-29 12:14 ` [kvm-unit-tests PATCH 1/6] s390x: Use interrupts in SCLP and add locking Janosch Frank
2019-08-30 12:21   ` David Hildenbrand
2019-09-02 11:42     ` Thomas Huth
2019-09-03  7:53     ` Janosch Frank
2019-09-03  8:52       ` David Hildenbrand
2019-08-29 12:14 ` [kvm-unit-tests PATCH 2/6] s390x: Add linemode console Janosch Frank
2019-09-02 11:59   ` Thomas Huth
2019-08-29 12:14 ` [kvm-unit-tests PATCH 3/6] s390x: Add linemode buffer to fix newline on every print Janosch Frank
2019-08-29 12:14 ` [kvm-unit-tests PATCH 4/6] s390x: Add initial smp code Janosch Frank
2019-09-02 13:21   ` Thomas Huth
2019-09-03  8:10     ` Janosch Frank [this message]
2019-08-29 12:14 ` [kvm-unit-tests PATCH 5/6] s390x: Prepare for external calls Janosch Frank
2019-09-02 13:58   ` Thomas Huth
2019-09-02 14:17     ` Janosch Frank
2019-08-29 12:14 ` [kvm-unit-tests PATCH 6/6] s390x: SMP test Janosch Frank
2019-09-02 15:40   ` Thomas Huth
2019-09-03  8:44     ` Janosch Frank
2019-09-03  8:56       ` Thomas Huth

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=997a7035-d6a4-de37-f9fa-2b929632854f@linux.ibm.com \
    --to=frankja@linux.ibm.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