Re: [PATCH] KVM: s390: Enable specification exception interpretation

David Hildenbrand
2021-07-07T07:27:02Z

On 06.07.21 17:27, Janis Schoetterl-Glausch wrote:
> On 7/6/21 5:16 PM, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>> On 06.07.21 14:02, Christian Borntraeger wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On 06.07.21 13:59, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>>>> On 06.07.21 13:56, Christian Borntraeger wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 06.07.21 13:52, Cornelia Huck wrote:
>>>>>> On Tue, Jul 06 2021, Janis Schoetterl-Glausch <scgl@linux.ibm.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> When this feature is enabled the hardware is free to interpret
>>>>>>> specification exceptions generated by the guest, instead of causing
>>>>>>> program interruption interceptions.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This benefits (test) programs that generate a lot of specification
>>>>>>> exceptions (roughly 4x increase in exceptions/sec).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Interceptions will occur as before if ICTL_PINT is set,
>>>>>>> i.e. if guest debug is enabled.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Janis Schoetterl-Glausch <scgl@linux.ibm.com>
>>>>>>> ---
>>>>>>> I'll additionally send kvm-unit-tests for testing this feature.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>     arch/s390/include/asm/kvm_host.h | 1 +
>>>>>>>     arch/s390/kvm/kvm-s390.c         | 2 ++
>>>>>>>     arch/s390/kvm/vsie.c             | 2 ++
>>>>>>>     3 files changed, 5 insertions(+)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> (...)
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> diff --git a/arch/s390/kvm/kvm-s390.c b/arch/s390/kvm/kvm-s390.c
>>>>>>> index b655a7d82bf0..aadd589a3755 100644
>>>>>>> --- a/arch/s390/kvm/kvm-s390.c
>>>>>>> +++ b/arch/s390/kvm/kvm-s390.c
>>>>>>> @@ -3200,6 +3200,8 @@ static int kvm_s390_vcpu_setup(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
>>>>>>>             vcpu->arch.sie_block->ecb |= ECB_SRSI;
>>>>>>>         if (test_kvm_facility(vcpu->kvm, 73))
>>>>>>>             vcpu->arch.sie_block->ecb |= ECB_TE;
>>>>>>> +    if (!kvm_is_ucontrol(vcpu->kvm))
>>>>>>> +        vcpu->arch.sie_block->ecb |= ECB_SPECI;
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Does this exist for any hardware version (i.e. not guarded by a cpu
>>>>>> feature?)
>>>>>
>>>>> Not for all hardware versions, but also no indication. The architecture
>>>>> says that the HW is free to do this or not. (which makes the vsie code
>>>>> simpler).
>>>>
>>>> I remember the architecture said at some point to never set undefined bits - and this bit is undefined on older HW generations. I might be wrong, though.
>>>
>>> I can confirm that this bit will be ignored on older machines. The notion of
>>> never setting undefined bits comes from "you never know what this bit will
>>> change in future machines". Now we know :-)
>>
>> Well, okay then :)
>>
>> So the plan for vSIE is to always keep it disabled? IIUC, one could similarly always forward the bit of set.
>
> The bit does get copied for vSIE.

... and I missed that hunk :)

LGTM then

Reviewed-by: David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>

--
Thanks,

David / dhildenb