From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mx2.suse.de (cantor2.suse.de [195.135.220.15]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 03B531A00D3 for ; Thu, 5 Jun 2014 22:23:55 +1000 (EST) Message-ID: <53906156.4090403@suse.de> Date: Thu, 05 Jun 2014 14:23:50 +0200 From: Alexander Graf MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Aneesh Kumar K.V" , benh@kernel.crashing.org, paulus@samba.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/4] KVM: PPC: BOOK3S: PR: Doorbell support References: <1401970085-14493-1-git-send-email-aneesh.kumar@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <1401970085-14493-3-git-send-email-aneesh.kumar@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <539060B5.9040808@suse.de> In-Reply-To: <539060B5.9040808@suse.de> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Cc: linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, kvm@vger.kernel.org, kvm-ppc@vger.kernel.org List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On 05.06.14 14:21, Alexander Graf wrote: > > On 05.06.14 14:08, Aneesh Kumar K.V wrote: >> We don't have SMT support yet, hence we should not find a doorbell >> message generated >> >> Signed-off-by: Aneesh Kumar K.V >> --- >> arch/powerpc/kvm/book3s_emulate.c | 18 ++++++++++++++++++ >> 1 file changed, 18 insertions(+) >> >> diff --git a/arch/powerpc/kvm/book3s_emulate.c >> b/arch/powerpc/kvm/book3s_emulate.c >> index 1bb16a59dcbc..d6c87d085182 100644 >> --- a/arch/powerpc/kvm/book3s_emulate.c >> +++ b/arch/powerpc/kvm/book3s_emulate.c >> @@ -28,7 +28,9 @@ >> #define OP_19_XOP_RFI 50 >> #define OP_31_XOP_MFMSR 83 >> +#define OP_31_XOP_MSGSNDP 142 >> #define OP_31_XOP_MTMSR 146 >> +#define OP_31_XOP_MSGCLRP 174 >> #define OP_31_XOP_MTMSRD 178 >> #define OP_31_XOP_MTSR 210 >> #define OP_31_XOP_MTSRIN 242 >> @@ -303,6 +305,22 @@ int kvmppc_core_emulate_op_pr(struct kvm_run >> *run, struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, >> break; >> } >> + case OP_31_XOP_MSGSNDP: >> + { >> + /* >> + * PR KVM still don't support SMT mode. So we should > > still? > >> + * not see a MSGSNDP/MSGCLRP used with PR KVM >> + */ >> + pr_info("KVM: MSGSNDP used in non SMT case\n"); >> + emulated = EMULATE_FAIL; > > What would happen on an HV guest with only 1 thread that MSGSNDs to > thread 0? Would the guest get an illegal instruction trap, a > self-interrupt or would this be a simple nop? What I'm trying to say here is that it's ok to treat it as illegal instructions, but then we don't need this patch :). Alex