s390x: smp: Improve smp code and reset checks
v2 cover s390x: smp: Improve smp code and reset checks
Let's extend sigp reset testing and clean up the smp library as well.
GIT: https://github.com/frankjaa/kvm-unit-tests/tree/smp_cleanup
v2:
* Added cpu stop to test_store_status()
* Added smp_cpu_destroy() to the end of smp.c main()
* New patch that prints cpu id on interrupt errors
* New patch that reworks cpu start in the smp library (needed for lpar)
* New patch that waits for cpu setup in smp_cpu_setup() (needed for lpar)
* nullp is now an array
Janosch Frank (7):
s390x: smp: Cleanup smp.c
s390x: smp: Only use smp_cpu_setup once
s390x: Add cpu id to interrupt error prints
s390x: smp: Rework cpu start and active tracking
s390x: smp: Wait for cpu setup to finish
s390x: smp: Test all CRs on initial reset
s390x: smp: Dirty fpc before initial reset test
lib/s390x/interrupt.c | 20 +++++------ lib/s390x/smp.c | 47 +++++++++++++----------- s390x/cstart64.S | 2 ++ s390x/smp.c | 84 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-------------- 4 files changed, 96 insertions(+), 57 deletions(-)
Signature · 1 line
2.20.1
PATCH v2 1/7 s390x: smp: Cleanup smp.c
Let's remove a lot of badly formatted code by introducing the wait_for_flag() function.
Also let's remove some stray spaces.
--- s390x/smp.c | 42 ++++++++++++++++++++++++------------------ 1 file changed, 24 insertions(+), 18 deletions(-)
s390x/smp.c +24 -18
@@ -22,6 +22,13 @@static int testflag =0 ; +static void wait_for_flag (void ) +{ +while (!testflag) { +mb (); + } +} +static void cpu_loop (void ) {for (;;) {}
@@ -37,13 +44,11 @@ static void test_func(void)static void test_start (void ) {struct psw psw; - psw.mask =extract_psw_mask (); + psw.mask =extract_psw_mask (); psw.addr = (unsigned long )test_func;smp_cpu_setup (1 , psw); -while (!testflag) { -mb (); - } +wait_for_flag ();report (1 ,"start" ); }
@@ -98,6 +103,7 @@ static void test_store_status(void)report (1 ,"status written" );free_pages (status,PAGE_SIZE *2 );report_prefix_pop (); +smp_cpu_stop (1 );report_prefix_pop (); }
@@ -115,24 +121,24 @@ static void ecall(void) testflag =1 ;while (lc->ext_int_code !=0x1202 ) {mb (); }report (1 ,"ecall" ); - testflag=1 ; + testflag =1 ; }static void test_ecall (void ) {struct psw psw; - psw.mask =extract_psw_mask (); + psw.mask =extract_psw_mask (); psw.addr = (unsigned long )ecall;report_prefix_push ("ecall" ); - testflag=0 ; + testflag =0 ;smp_cpu_destroy (1 );smp_cpu_setup (1 , psw); -while (!testflag) {mb (); } - testflag=0 ; +wait_for_flag (); + testflag =0 ;sigp (1 ,SIGP_EXTERNAL_CALL ,0 ,NULL ); -while (!testflag) {mb ();} +wait_for_flag ();smp_cpu_stop (1 );report_prefix_pop (); }
@@ -147,7 +153,7 @@ static void emcall(void) mask =extract_psw_mask (); mask |=PSW_MASK_EXT ;load_psw_mask (mask); - testflag=1 ; + testflag =1 ;while (lc->ext_int_code !=0x1201 ) {mb (); }report (1 ,"ecall" ); testflag =1 ;
@@ -156,18 +162,18 @@ static void emcall(void)static void test_emcall (void ) {struct psw psw; - psw.mask =extract_psw_mask (); + psw.mask =extract_psw_mask (); psw.addr = (unsigned long )emcall;report_prefix_push ("emcall" ); - testflag=0 ; + testflag =0 ;smp_cpu_destroy (1 );smp_cpu_setup (1 , psw); -while (!testflag) {mb (); } - testflag=0 ; +wait_for_flag (); + testflag =0 ;sigp (1 ,SIGP_EMERGENCY_SIGNAL ,0 ,NULL ); -while (!testflag) {mb (); } +wait_for_flag ();smp_cpu_stop (1 );report_prefix_pop (); }
@@ -177,7 +183,7 @@ static void test_reset_initial(void)struct cpu_status *status =alloc_pages (0 );struct psw psw; - psw.mask =extract_psw_mask (); + psw.mask =extract_psw_mask (); psw.addr = (unsigned long )test_func;report_prefix_push ("reset initial" );
@@ -208,7 +214,7 @@ static void test_reset(void) {struct psw psw; - psw.mask =extract_psw_mask (); + psw.mask =extract_psw_mask (); psw.addr = (unsigned long )test_func;report_prefix_push ("cpu reset" );
Signature · 1 line
2.20.1
Re: [kvm-unit-tests PATCH v2 1/7] s390x: smp: Cleanup smp.c
Quoted 47 lines · Janosch Frank
Let's remove a lot of badly formatted code by introducing the
wait_for_flag()function.Also let's remove some stray spaces.
Signed-off-by Janosch Frank <[email protected]>Reviewed-by Thomas Huth <[email protected]>Reviewed-by Cornelia Huck <[email protected]>--- s390x/smp.c | 42 ++++++++++++++++++++++++------------------ 1 file changed, 24 insertions(+), 18 deletions(-)s390x/smp.c +9
-4@@ -22,6 +22,13 @@static int testflag =0 ; +static void wait_for_flag (void ) +{ +while (!testflag) { +mb (); + } +} +static void cpu_loop (void ) {for (;;) {}@@ -37,13 +44,11 @@ static void test_func(void)static void test_start (void ) {struct psw psw; - psw.mask =extract_psw_mask (); + psw.mask =extract_psw_mask (); psw.addr = (unsigned long )test_func;smp_cpu_setup (1 , psw); -while (!testflag) { -mb (); - } +wait_for_flag ();report (1 ,"start" ); }
s390x/smp.c static void test_store_status(void) · line 106
Quoted 4 lines
s390x/smp.c +1
-0@@ -98,6 +103,7 @@ static void test_store_status(void)report (1 ,"status written" );free_pages (status,PAGE_SIZE *2 );report_prefix_pop (); +smp_cpu_stop (1 );
This hunk does not seem to belong into this patch.
Apart from that, looks good to me.
Signature · 3 lines
Thanks, David / dhildenb
Re: [kvm-unit-tests PATCH v2 1/7] s390x: smp: Cleanup smp.c
Quoted 55 lines · David Hildenbrand
Quoted 47 lines · Janosch Frank
Let's remove a lot of badly formatted code by introducing the
wait_for_flag()function.Also let's remove some stray spaces.
Signed-off-by Janosch Frank <[email protected]>Reviewed-by Thomas Huth <[email protected]>Reviewed-by Cornelia Huck <[email protected]>--- s390x/smp.c | 42 ++++++++++++++++++++++++------------------ 1 file changed, 24 insertions(+), 18 deletions(-)s390x/smp.c +9
-4@@ -22,6 +22,13 @@static int testflag =0 ; +static void wait_for_flag (void ) +{ +while (!testflag) { +mb (); + } +} +static void cpu_loop (void ) {for (;;) {}@@ -37,13 +44,11 @@ static void test_func(void)static void test_start (void ) {struct psw psw; - psw.mask =extract_psw_mask (); + psw.mask =extract_psw_mask (); psw.addr = (unsigned long )test_func;smp_cpu_setup (1 , psw); -while (!testflag) { -mb (); - } +wait_for_flag ();report (1 ,"start" ); }s390x/smp.c static void test_store_status(void) · line 106
Quoted 4 lines
s390x/smp.c +1
-0@@ -98,6 +103,7 @@ static void test_store_status(void)report (1 ,"status written" );free_pages (status,PAGE_SIZE *2 );report_prefix_pop (); +smp_cpu_stop (1 );This hunk does not seem to belong into this patch.
Quoted 1 line
Apart from that, looks good to me.
Hunk was moved to the next patch and I pushed the branch
PATCH v2 2/7 s390x: smp: Only use smp_cpu_setup once
In reply to Janosch FrankLet's stop and start instead of using setup to run a function on a cpu.
--- s390x/smp.c | 20 +++++++++++++------- 1 file changed, 13 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
s390x/smp.c +13 -7
@@ -47,7 +47,7 @@ static void test_start(void) psw.mask =extract_psw_mask (); psw.addr = (unsigned long )test_func; -smp_cpu_setup (1 , psw); +smp_cpu_start (1 , psw);wait_for_flag ();report (1 ,"start" ); }
@@ -132,9 +132,8 @@ static void test_ecall(void)report_prefix_push ("ecall" ); testflag =0 ; -smp_cpu_destroy (1 ); -smp_cpu_setup (1 , psw); +smp_cpu_start (1 , psw);wait_for_flag (); testflag =0 ;sigp (1 ,SIGP_EXTERNAL_CALL ,0 ,NULL );
@@ -167,9 +166,8 @@ static void test_emcall(void)report_prefix_push ("emcall" ); testflag =0 ; -smp_cpu_destroy (1 ); -smp_cpu_setup (1 , psw); +smp_cpu_start (1 , psw);wait_for_flag (); testflag =0 ;sigp (1 ,SIGP_EMERGENCY_SIGNAL ,0 ,NULL );
@@ -187,7 +185,7 @@ static void test_reset_initial(void) psw.addr = (unsigned long )test_func;report_prefix_push ("reset initial" ); -smp_cpu_setup (1 , psw); +smp_cpu_start (1 , psw);sigp_retry (1 ,SIGP_INITIAL_CPU_RESET ,0 ,NULL );sigp (1 ,SIGP_STORE_STATUS_AT_ADDRESS , (uintptr_t )status,NULL );
@@ -218,7 +216,7 @@ static void test_reset(void) psw.addr = (unsigned long )test_func;report_prefix_push ("cpu reset" ); -smp_cpu_setup (1 , psw); +smp_cpu_start (1 , psw);sigp_retry (1 ,SIGP_CPU_RESET ,0 ,NULL );report (smp_cpu_stopped (1 ),"cpu stopped" );
@@ -227,6 +225,7 @@ static void test_reset(void)int main (void ) { +struct psw psw;report_prefix_push ("smp" );if (smp_query_num_cpus () ==1 ) {
@@ -234,6 +233,12 @@ int main(void) goto done; } +/* Setting up the cpu to give it a stack and lowcore */ + psw.mask =extract_psw_mask (); + psw.addr = (unsigned long )cpu_loop; +smp_cpu_setup (1 , psw); +smp_cpu_stop (1 ); +test_start ();test_stop ();test_stop_store_status ();
@@ -242,6 +247,7 @@ int main(void)test_emcall ();test_reset ();test_reset_initial (); +smp_cpu_destroy (1 ); done:report_prefix_pop ();
Signature · 1 line
2.20.1
Re: [kvm-unit-tests PATCH v2 2/7] s390x: smp: Only use smp_cpu_setup once
Quoted 86 lines · Janosch Frank
Let's stop and start instead of using setup to run a function on a cpu.
Signed-off-by Janosch Frank <[email protected]>Reviewed-by Thomas Huth <[email protected]>Reviewed-by Cornelia Huck <[email protected]>--- s390x/smp.c | 20 +++++++++++++------- 1 file changed, 13 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)s390x/smp.c +12
-7@@ -47,7 +47,7 @@ static void test_start(void) psw.mask =extract_psw_mask (); psw.addr = (unsigned long )test_func; -smp_cpu_setup (1 , psw); +smp_cpu_start (1 , psw);wait_for_flag ();report (1 ,"start" ); }@@ -132,9 +132,8 @@ static void test_ecall(void)report_prefix_push ("ecall" ); testflag =0 ; -smp_cpu_destroy (1 ); -smp_cpu_setup (1 , psw); +smp_cpu_start (1 , psw);wait_for_flag (); testflag =0 ;sigp (1 ,SIGP_EXTERNAL_CALL ,0 ,NULL );@@ -167,9 +166,8 @@ static void test_emcall(void)report_prefix_push ("emcall" ); testflag =0 ; -smp_cpu_destroy (1 ); -smp_cpu_setup (1 , psw); +smp_cpu_start (1 , psw);wait_for_flag (); testflag =0 ;sigp (1 ,SIGP_EMERGENCY_SIGNAL ,0 ,NULL );@@ -187,7 +185,7 @@ static void test_reset_initial(void) psw.addr = (unsigned long )test_func;report_prefix_push ("reset initial" ); -smp_cpu_setup (1 , psw); +smp_cpu_start (1 , psw);sigp_retry (1 ,SIGP_INITIAL_CPU_RESET ,0 ,NULL );sigp (1 ,SIGP_STORE_STATUS_AT_ADDRESS , (uintptr_t )status,NULL );@@ -218,7 +216,7 @@ static void test_reset(void) psw.addr = (unsigned long )test_func;report_prefix_push ("cpu reset" ); -smp_cpu_setup (1 , psw); +smp_cpu_start (1 , psw);sigp_retry (1 ,SIGP_CPU_RESET ,0 ,NULL );report (smp_cpu_stopped (1 ),"cpu stopped" );@@ -227,6 +225,7 @@ static void test_reset(void)int main (void ) { +struct psw psw;report_prefix_push ("smp" );if (smp_query_num_cpus () ==1 ) {@@ -234,6 +233,12 @@ int main(void) goto done; } +/* Setting up the cpu to give it a stack and lowcore */ + psw.mask =extract_psw_mask (); + psw.addr = (unsigned long )cpu_loop; +smp_cpu_setup (1 , psw); +smp_cpu_stop (1 ); +test_start ();test_stop ();test_stop_store_status ();
s390x/smp.c int main(void) · line 253
Quoted 7 lines
s390x/smp.c +1
-0@@ -242,6 +247,7 @@ int main(void)test_emcall ();test_reset ();test_reset_initial (); +smp_cpu_destroy (1 ); done:report_prefix_pop ();
Signature · 3 lines
Thanks, David / dhildenb
Re: [kvm-unit-tests PATCH v2 2/7] s390x: smp: Only use smp_cpu_setup once
Quoted 91 lines · David Hildenbrand
Quoted 90 lines · Janosch Frank
Let's stop and start instead of using setup to run a function on a cpu.
Signed-off-by Janosch Frank <[email protected]>Reviewed-by Thomas Huth <[email protected]>Reviewed-by Cornelia Huck <[email protected]>--- s390x/smp.c | 20 +++++++++++++------- 1 file changed, 13 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)s390x/smp.c +13
-7@@ -47,7 +47,7 @@ static void test_start(void) psw.mask =extract_psw_mask (); psw.addr = (unsigned long )test_func; -smp_cpu_setup (1 , psw); +smp_cpu_start (1 , psw);wait_for_flag ();report (1 ,"start" ); }@@ -132,9 +132,8 @@ static void test_ecall(void)report_prefix_push ("ecall" ); testflag =0 ; -smp_cpu_destroy (1 ); -smp_cpu_setup (1 , psw); +smp_cpu_start (1 , psw);wait_for_flag (); testflag =0 ;sigp (1 ,SIGP_EXTERNAL_CALL ,0 ,NULL );@@ -167,9 +166,8 @@ static void test_emcall(void)report_prefix_push ("emcall" ); testflag =0 ; -smp_cpu_destroy (1 ); -smp_cpu_setup (1 , psw); +smp_cpu_start (1 , psw);wait_for_flag (); testflag =0 ;sigp (1 ,SIGP_EMERGENCY_SIGNAL ,0 ,NULL );@@ -187,7 +185,7 @@ static void test_reset_initial(void) psw.addr = (unsigned long )test_func;report_prefix_push ("reset initial" ); -smp_cpu_setup (1 , psw); +smp_cpu_start (1 , psw);sigp_retry (1 ,SIGP_INITIAL_CPU_RESET ,0 ,NULL );sigp (1 ,SIGP_STORE_STATUS_AT_ADDRESS , (uintptr_t )status,NULL );@@ -218,7 +216,7 @@ static void test_reset(void) psw.addr = (unsigned long )test_func;report_prefix_push ("cpu reset" ); -smp_cpu_setup (1 , psw); +smp_cpu_start (1 , psw);sigp_retry (1 ,SIGP_CPU_RESET ,0 ,NULL );report (smp_cpu_stopped (1 ),"cpu stopped" );@@ -227,6 +225,7 @@ static void test_reset(void)int main (void ) { +struct psw psw;report_prefix_push ("smp" );if (smp_query_num_cpus () ==1 ) {@@ -234,6 +233,12 @@ int main(void) goto done; } +/* Setting up the cpu to give it a stack and lowcore */ + psw.mask =extract_psw_mask (); + psw.addr = (unsigned long )cpu_loop; +smp_cpu_setup (1 , psw); +smp_cpu_stop (1 ); +test_start ();test_stop ();test_stop_store_status ();@@ -242,6 +247,7 @@ int main(void)test_emcall ();test_reset ();test_reset_initial (); +smp_cpu_destroy (1 );
Quoted 5 lines
s390x/smp.c int main(void) · line 253
Quoted 3 lines
s390x/smp.c +0
-0done:report_prefix_pop ();
Thanks!
PATCH v2 3/7 s390x: Add cpu id to interrupt error prints
In reply to Janosch FrankIt's good to know which cpu broke the test.
--- lib/s390x/interrupt.c | 20 ++++++++++---------- 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)
lib/s390x/interrupt.c +10 -10
@@ -107,8 +107,8 @@ static void fixup_pgm_int(void)void handle_pgm_int (void ) {if (!pgm_int_expected) -report_abort ("Unexpected program interrupt: %d at %#lx, ilen %d\n" , - lc->pgm_int_code, lc->pgm_old_psw.addr, +report_abort ("Unexpected program interrupt: %d on cpu %d at %#lx, ilen %d\n" , + lc->pgm_int_code,stap (), lc->pgm_old_psw.addr, lc->pgm_int_id); pgm_int_expected = false;
@@ -119,8 +119,8 @@ void handle_ext_int(void) {if (!ext_int_expected && lc->ext_int_code !=EXT_IRQ_SERVICE_SIG ) { -report_abort ("Unexpected external call interrupt (code %#x): at %#lx" , - lc->ext_int_code, lc->ext_old_psw.addr); +report_abort ("Unexpected external call interrupt (code %#x): on cpu %d at %#lx" , +stap (), lc->ext_int_code, lc->ext_old_psw.addr);return ; }
@@ -137,18 +137,18 @@ void handle_ext_int(void)void handle_mcck_int (void ) { -report_abort ("Unexpected machine check interrupt: at %#lx" , - lc->mcck_old_psw.addr); +report_abort ("Unexpected machine check interrupt: on cpu %d at %#lx" , +stap (), lc->mcck_old_psw.addr); }void handle_io_int (void ) { -report_abort ("Unexpected io interrupt: at %#lx" , - lc->io_old_psw.addr); +report_abort ("Unexpected io interrupt: on cpu %d at %#lx" , +stap (), lc->io_old_psw.addr); }void handle_svc_int (void ) { -report_abort ("Unexpected supervisor call interrupt: at %#lx" , - lc->svc_old_psw.addr); +report_abort ("Unexpected supervisor call interrupt: on cpu %d at %#lx" , +stap (), lc->svc_old_psw.addr); }
Signature · 1 line
2.20.1
Re: [kvm-unit-tests PATCH v2 3/7] s390x: Add cpu id to interrupt error prints
Quoted 12 lines · Janosch Frank
It's good to know which cpu broke the test.
Signed-off-by Janosch Frank <[email protected]>--- lib/s390x/interrupt.c | 20 ++++++++++---------- 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)lib/s390x/interrupt.c +0
-0
lib/s390x/interrupt.c static void fixup_pgm_int(void) · line 112
Quoted 8 lines
lib/s390x/interrupt.c +2
-2@@ -107,8 +107,8 @@ static void fixup_pgm_int(void)void handle_pgm_int (void ) {if (!pgm_int_expected) -report_abort ("Unexpected program interrupt: %d at %#lx, ilen %d\n" , - lc->pgm_int_code, lc->pgm_old_psw.addr, +report_abort ("Unexpected program interrupt: %d on cpu %d at %#lx, ilen %d\n" , + lc->pgm_int_code,stap (), lc->pgm_old_psw.addr, lc->pgm_int_id);
nit: "cpu: %d"
lib/s390x/interrupt.c void handle_ext_int(void) · line 123
Quoted 10 lines
lib/s390x/interrupt.c +2
-2pgm_int_expected = false;@@ -119,8 +119,8 @@ void handle_ext_int(void) {if (!ext_int_expected && lc->ext_int_code !=EXT_IRQ_SERVICE_SIG ) { -report_abort ("Unexpected external call interrupt (code %#x): at %#lx" , - lc->ext_int_code, lc->ext_old_psw.addr); +report_abort ("Unexpected external call interrupt (code %#x): on cpu %d at %#lx" , +stap (), lc->ext_int_code, lc->ext_old_psw.addr);
nit: "(code %#x) on cpu: %d" ...
Same comment for the ones below
Quoted 29 lines
lib/s390x/interrupt.c +6
-6return ; }@@ -137,18 +137,18 @@ void handle_ext_int(void)void handle_mcck_int (void ) { -report_abort ("Unexpected machine check interrupt: at %#lx" , - lc->mcck_old_psw.addr); +report_abort ("Unexpected machine check interrupt: on cpu %d at %#lx" , +stap (), lc->mcck_old_psw.addr); }void handle_io_int (void ) { -report_abort ("Unexpected io interrupt: at %#lx" , - lc->io_old_psw.addr); +report_abort ("Unexpected io interrupt: on cpu %d at %#lx" , +stap (), lc->io_old_psw.addr); }void handle_svc_int (void ) { -report_abort ("Unexpected supervisor call interrupt: at %#lx" , - lc->svc_old_psw.addr); +report_abort ("Unexpected supervisor call interrupt: on cpu %d at %#lx" , +stap (), lc->svc_old_psw.addr); }
Signature · 3 lines
Thanks, David / dhildenb
Re: [kvm-unit-tests PATCH v2 3/7] s390x: Add cpu id to interrupt error prints
Quoted 25 lines · David Hildenbrand
Quoted 12 lines · Janosch Frank
It's good to know which cpu broke the test.
Signed-off-by Janosch Frank <[email protected]>--- lib/s390x/interrupt.c | 20 ++++++++++---------- 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)lib/s390x/interrupt.c +0
-0lib/s390x/interrupt.c static void fixup_pgm_int(void) · line 112
Quoted 8 lines
lib/s390x/interrupt.c +2
-2@@ -107,8 +107,8 @@ static void fixup_pgm_int(void)void handle_pgm_int (void ) {if (!pgm_int_expected) -report_abort ("Unexpected program interrupt: %d at %#lx, ilen %d\n" , - lc->pgm_int_code, lc->pgm_old_psw.addr, +report_abort ("Unexpected program interrupt: %d on cpu %d at %#lx, ilen %d\n" , + lc->pgm_int_code,stap (), lc->pgm_old_psw.addr, lc->pgm_int_id);nit: "cpu: %d"
Quoted 1 line
Quoted 11 lines
lib/s390x/interrupt.c void handle_ext_int(void) · line 123
Quoted 9 lines
lib/s390x/interrupt.c +2
-2pgm_int_expected = false;@@ -119,8 +119,8 @@ void handle_ext_int(void) {if (!ext_int_expected && lc->ext_int_code !=EXT_IRQ_SERVICE_SIG ) { -report_abort ("Unexpected external call interrupt (code %#x): at %#lx" , - lc->ext_int_code, lc->ext_old_psw.addr); +report_abort ("Unexpected external call interrupt (code %#x): on cpu %d at %#lx" , +stap (), lc->ext_int_code, lc->ext_old_psw.addr);nit: "(code %#x) on cpu: %d" ...
So, should I move the old : or add a second one?
Quoted 35 lines
Same comment for the ones below
Reviewed-by David Hildenbrand <[email protected]>Quoted 29 lines
lib/s390x/interrupt.c +6
-6return ; }@@ -137,18 +137,18 @@ void handle_ext_int(void)void handle_mcck_int (void ) { -report_abort ("Unexpected machine check interrupt: at %#lx" , - lc->mcck_old_psw.addr); +report_abort ("Unexpected machine check interrupt: on cpu %d at %#lx" , +stap (), lc->mcck_old_psw.addr); }void handle_io_int (void ) { -report_abort ("Unexpected io interrupt: at %#lx" , - lc->io_old_psw.addr); +report_abort ("Unexpected io interrupt: on cpu %d at %#lx" , +stap (), lc->io_old_psw.addr); }void handle_svc_int (void ) { -report_abort ("Unexpected supervisor call interrupt: at %#lx" , - lc->svc_old_psw.addr); +report_abort ("Unexpected supervisor call interrupt: on cpu %d at %#lx" , +stap (), lc->svc_old_psw.addr); }
Re: [kvm-unit-tests PATCH v2 3/7] s390x: Add cpu id to interrupt error prints
Quoted 38 lines · Janosch Frank
Quoted 25 lines · David Hildenbrand
Quoted 12 lines · Janosch Frank
It's good to know which cpu broke the test.
Signed-off-by Janosch Frank <[email protected]>--- lib/s390x/interrupt.c | 20 ++++++++++---------- 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)lib/s390x/interrupt.c +0
-0lib/s390x/interrupt.c static void fixup_pgm_int(void) · line 112
Quoted 8 lines
lib/s390x/interrupt.c +2
-2@@ -107,8 +107,8 @@ static void fixup_pgm_int(void)void handle_pgm_int (void ) {if (!pgm_int_expected) -report_abort ("Unexpected program interrupt: %d at %#lx, ilen %d\n" , - lc->pgm_int_code, lc->pgm_old_psw.addr, +report_abort ("Unexpected program interrupt: %d on cpu %d at %#lx, ilen %d\n" , + lc->pgm_int_code,stap (), lc->pgm_old_psw.addr, lc->pgm_int_id);nit: "cpu: %d"
Quoted 1 line
Quoted 11 lines
lib/s390x/interrupt.c void handle_ext_int(void) · line 123
Quoted 9 lines
lib/s390x/interrupt.c +2
-2pgm_int_expected = false;@@ -119,8 +119,8 @@ void handle_ext_int(void) {if (!ext_int_expected && lc->ext_int_code !=EXT_IRQ_SERVICE_SIG ) { -report_abort ("Unexpected external call interrupt (code %#x): at %#lx" , - lc->ext_int_code, lc->ext_old_psw.addr); +report_abort ("Unexpected external call interrupt (code %#x): on cpu %d at %#lx" , +stap (), lc->ext_int_code, lc->ext_old_psw.addr);nit: "(code %#x) on cpu: %d" ...
Quoted 1 line
So, should I move the old : or add a second one?
No strong feelings, whatever you prefer. (you can also keep it unchanged, it's just a test error output after all)
Signature · 3 lines
Thanks, David / dhildenb
Re: [kvm-unit-tests PATCH v2 3/7] s390x: Add cpu id to interrupt error prints
In reply to Janosch FrankQuoted 6 lines · On Thu, 16 Jan 2020 07:05:09 -0500 Janosch Frank <[email protected]> wrote:
It's good to know which cpu broke the test.
Signed-off-by Janosch Frank <[email protected]>--- lib/s390x/interrupt.c | 20 ++++++++++---------- 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)
With whatever formatting tweaks you choose:
Re: [kvm-unit-tests PATCH v2 3/7] s390x: Add cpu id to interrupt error prints
Quoted 5 lines · Cornelia Huck
Quoted 2 lines · On Thu, 16 Jan 2020 07:05:09 -0500 Janosch Frank <[email protected]> wrote:
It's good to know which cpu broke the test.
Quoted 8 lines
Quoted 4 lines
Signed-off-by Janosch Frank <[email protected]>--- lib/s390x/interrupt.c | 20 ++++++++++---------- 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)With whatever formatting tweaks you choose:
Reviewed-by Cornelia Huck <[email protected]>
Thanks!
I think I might just stick with the old formatting.
PATCH v2 4/7 s390x: smp: Rework cpu start and active tracking
In reply to Janosch Franksigp is not synchronous on all hypervisors, so we need to wait until the cpu runs until we return from the setup/start function.
As there was a lot of duplicate code a common function for cpu restarts has been intropduced.
--- lib/s390x/smp.c | 45 ++++++++++++++++++++++++--------------------- 1 file changed, 24 insertions(+), 21 deletions(-)
lib/s390x/smp.c +24 -21
@@ -104,35 +104,41 @@ int smp_cpu_stop_store_status(uint16_t addr)return rc; } +static int smp_cpu_restart_nolock (uint16_t addr,struct psw *psw) +{ +int rc; +struct cpu *cpu =smp_cpu_from_addr (addr); + +if (!cpu) +return -1 ; +if (psw) { + cpu->lowcore->restart_new_psw.mask = psw->mask; + cpu->lowcore->restart_new_psw.addr = psw->addr; + } + rc =sigp (addr,SIGP_RESTART ,0 ,NULL ); +if (rc) +return rc; +while (!smp_cpu_running (addr)) {mb (); } + cpu->active = true; +return 0 ; +} +int smp_cpu_restart (uint16_t addr) { -int rc =-1 ; -struct cpu *cpu; +int rc;spin_lock (&lock); - cpu =smp_cpu_from_addr (addr); -if (cpu) { - rc =sigp (addr,SIGP_RESTART ,0 ,NULL ); - cpu->active = true; - } + rc =smp_cpu_restart_nolock (addr,NULL );spin_unlock (&lock);return rc; }int smp_cpu_start (uint16_t addr,struct psw psw) { -int rc =-1 ; -struct cpu *cpu; -struct lowcore *lc; +int rc;spin_lock (&lock); - cpu =smp_cpu_from_addr (addr); -if (cpu) { - lc = cpu->lowcore; - lc->restart_new_psw.mask = psw.mask; - lc->restart_new_psw.addr = psw.addr; - rc =sigp (addr,SIGP_RESTART ,0 ,NULL ); - } + rc =smp_cpu_restart_nolock (addr, &psw);spin_unlock (&lock);return rc; }
@@ -192,10 +198,7 @@ int smp_cpu_setup(uint16_t addr, struct psw psw) lc->sw_int_crs[0 ] =0x0000000000040000UL ;/* Start processing */ - rc =sigp_retry (cpu->addr,SIGP_RESTART ,0 ,NULL ); -if (!rc) - cpu->active = true; - +smp_cpu_restart_nolock (addr,NULL ); out:spin_unlock (&lock);return rc;
Signature · 1 line
2.20.1
Re: [kvm-unit-tests PATCH v2 4/7] s390x: smp: Rework cpu start and active tracking
Quoted 1 line · On Thu, 16 Jan 2020 07:05:10 -0500 Janosch Frank <[email protected]> wrote:
sigp is not synchronous on all hypervisors, so we need to wait until
"The architecture specifies that processing sigp orders may be asynchronous, and this is indeed the case on some hypervisors, so..."
? (Or is that overkill?)
Quoted 1 line
the cpu runs until we return from the setup/start function.
s/until we return/before we return/
Quoted 2 lines
As there was a lot of duplicate code a common function for cpu
s/code/code,/
Quoted 1 line
restarts has been intropduced.
s/intropduced/introduced/
Quoted 19 lines
Signed-off-by Janosch Frank <[email protected]>--- lib/s390x/smp.c | 45 ++++++++++++++++++++++++--------------------- 1 file changed, 24 insertions(+), 21 deletions(-)lib/s390x/smp.c +5
-0@@ -104,35 +104,41 @@ int smp_cpu_stop_store_status(uint16_t addr)return rc; } +static int smp_cpu_restart_nolock (uint16_t addr,struct psw *psw) +{ +int rc; +struct cpu *cpu =smp_cpu_from_addr (addr); +
lib/s390x/smp.c int smp_cpu_stop_store_status(uint16_t addr) · line 121
Quoted 10 lines
lib/s390x/smp.c +10
-0+if (!cpu) +return -1 ; +if (psw) { + cpu->lowcore->restart_new_psw.mask = psw->mask; + cpu->lowcore->restart_new_psw.addr = psw->addr; + } + rc =sigp (addr,SIGP_RESTART ,0 ,NULL ); +if (rc) +return rc; +while (!smp_cpu_running (addr)) {mb (); }
Maybe split this statement? Also, maybe add a comment
/*
* The order has been accepted, but the actual restart may not
* have been performed yet, so wait until the cpu is running. */
?
lib/s390x/smp.c int smp_cpu_stop_store_status(uint16_t addr) · line 124
Quoted 3 lines
lib/s390x/smp.c +3
-0+ cpu->active = true; +return 0 ; +}
The changes look good to me AFAICS.
Re: [kvm-unit-tests PATCH v2 4/7] s390x: smp: Rework cpu start and active tracking
Quoted 46 lines · Cornelia Huck
Quoted 1 line · On Thu, 16 Jan 2020 07:05:10 -0500 Janosch Frank <[email protected]> wrote:
sigp is not synchronous on all hypervisors, so we need to wait until
"The architecture specifies that processing sigp orders may be asynchronous, and this is indeed the case on some hypervisors, so..."
? (Or is that overkill?)
Quoted 1 line
the cpu runs until we return from the setup/start function.
s/until we return/before we return/
Quoted 2 lines
As there was a lot of duplicate code a common function for cpu
s/code/code,/
Quoted 1 line
restarts has been intropduced.
s/intropduced/introduced/
Quoted 23 lines
Signed-off-by Janosch Frank <[email protected]>--- lib/s390x/smp.c | 45 ++++++++++++++++++++++++--------------------- 1 file changed, 24 insertions(+), 21 deletions(-)lib/s390x/smp.c +9
-0@@ -104,35 +104,41 @@ int smp_cpu_stop_store_status(uint16_t addr)return rc; } +static int smp_cpu_restart_nolock (uint16_t addr,struct psw *psw) +{ +int rc; +struct cpu *cpu =smp_cpu_from_addr (addr); + +if (!cpu) +return -1 ; +if (psw) { + cpu->lowcore->restart_new_psw.mask = psw->mask;
Quoted 8 lines
lib/s390x/smp.c int smp_cpu_stop_store_status(uint16_t addr) · line 121
Quoted 6 lines
lib/s390x/smp.c +6
-0+ cpu->lowcore->restart_new_psw.addr = psw->addr; + } + rc =sigp (addr,SIGP_RESTART ,0 ,NULL ); +if (rc) +return rc; +while (!smp_cpu_running (addr)) {mb (); }Maybe split this statement? Also, maybe add a comment
/* Wait until the target cpu is running */
?
This is not QEMU with two line ifs taking up 3 lines :)
Quoted 8 lines
/*
* The order has been accepted, but the actual restart may not
* have been performed yet, so wait until the cpu is running. */?
Quoted 7 lines
lib/s390x/smp.c int smp_cpu_stop_store_status(uint16_t addr) · line 124
Quoted 3 lines
lib/s390x/smp.c +3
-0+ cpu->active = true; +return 0 ; +}The changes look good to me AFAICS.
Reviewed-by Cornelia Huck <[email protected]>
Thanks!
Re: [kvm-unit-tests PATCH v2 4/7] s390x: smp: Rework cpu start and active tracking
Quoted 22 lines · On Thu, 16 Jan 2020 15:44:24 +0100 Janosch Frank <[email protected]> wrote:
Quoted 12 lines · Cornelia Huck
Quoted 9 lines · On Thu, 16 Jan 2020 07:05:10 -0500 Janosch Frank <[email protected]> wrote:
lib/s390x/smp.c +9
-0+static int smp_cpu_restart_nolock (uint16_t addr,struct psw *psw) +{ +int rc; +struct cpu *cpu =smp_cpu_from_addr (addr); + +if (!cpu) +return -1 ; +if (psw) { + cpu->lowcore->restart_new_psw.mask = psw->mask;Quoted 8 lines
lib/s390x/smp.c int smp_cpu_stop_store_status(uint16_t addr) · line 121
Quoted 6 lines
lib/s390x/smp.c +6
-0+ cpu->lowcore->restart_new_psw.addr = psw->addr; + } + rc =sigp (addr,SIGP_RESTART ,0 ,NULL ); +if (rc) +return rc; +while (!smp_cpu_running (addr)) {mb (); }Maybe split this statement? Also, maybe add a comment
Quoted 2 lines
/* Wait until the target cpu is running */
?
Fine with me as well :)
Quoted 2 lines
This is not QEMU with two line ifs taking up 3 lines :)
Heh, it's just the style I'm used to :)
Quoted 20 lines
Quoted 9 lines
/*
* The order has been accepted, but the actual restart may not
* have been performed yet, so wait until the cpu is running. */?
Quoted 7 lines
lib/s390x/smp.c int smp_cpu_stop_store_status(uint16_t addr) · line 124
Quoted 3 lines
lib/s390x/smp.c +3
-0+ cpu->active = true; +return 0 ; +}The changes look good to me AFAICS.
Reviewed-by Cornelia Huck <[email protected]>Thanks!
PATCH v2 5/7 s390x: smp: Wait for cpu setup to finish
In reply to Janosch FrankWe store the user provided psw address into restart new, so a psw restart does not lead us through setup again.
Also we wait on smp_cpu_setup() until the cpu has finished setup before returning. This is necessary for z/VM and LPAR where sigp is asynchronous.
--- lib/s390x/smp.c | 2 ++ s390x/cstart64.S | 2 ++ 2 files changed, 4 insertions(+)
lib/s390x/smp.c +2 -0
@@ -199,6 +199,8 @@ int smp_cpu_setup(uint16_t addr, struct psw psw)/* Start processing */ smp_cpu_restart_nolock (addr,NULL ); +/* Wait until the cpu has finished setup and started the provided psw */ +while (lc->restart_new_psw.addr != psw.addr) {mb (); } out:spin_unlock (&lock);return rc;
s390x/cstart64.S +2 -0
@@ -159,6 +159,8 @@ smp_cpu_setup_state: xgr %r1, %r1 lmg %r0, %r15, GEN_LC_SW_INT_GRS lctlg %c0, %c0, GEN_LC_SW_INT_CRS + /* We should only go once through cpu setup and not for every restart */ + stg %r14, GEN_LC_RESTART_NEW_PSW + 8 br %r14 pgm_int:
Signature · 1 line
2.20.1
Re: [kvm-unit-tests PATCH v2 5/7] s390x: smp: Wait for cpu setup to finish
Quoted 32 lines · Janosch Frank
We store the user provided psw address into restart new, so a psw restart does not lead us through setup again.
Also we wait on
smp_cpu_setup()until the cpu has finished setup before returning. This is necessary for z/VM and LPAR where sigp is asynchronous.Signed-off-by Janosch Frank <[email protected]>--- lib/s390x/smp.c | 2 ++ s390x/cstart64.S | 2 ++ 2 files changed, 4 insertions(+)lib/s390x/smp.c +2
-0@@ -199,6 +199,8 @@ int smp_cpu_setup(uint16_t addr, struct psw psw)/* Start processing */ smp_cpu_restart_nolock (addr,NULL ); +/* Wait until the cpu has finished setup and started the provided psw */ +while (lc->restart_new_psw.addr != psw.addr) {mb (); } out:spin_unlock (&lock);return rc;s390x/cstart64.S +0
-0
s390x/cstart64.S smp_cpu_setup_state: · line 166
Quoted 8 lines
s390x/cstart64.S +2
-0@@ -159,6 +159,8 @@ smp_cpu_setup_state: xgr %r1, %r1 lmg %r0, %r15, GEN_LC_SW_INT_GRS lctlg %c0, %c0, GEN_LC_SW_INT_CRS + /* We should only go once through cpu setup and not for every restart */ + stg %r14, GEN_LC_RESTART_NEW_PSW + 8 br %r14 pgm_int:
Signature · 3 lines
Thanks, David / dhildenb
PATCH v2 6/7 s390x: smp: Test all CRs on initial reset
In reply to Janosch FrankAll CRs are set to 0 and CRs 0 and 14 are set to pre-defined values, so we also need to test 1-13 and 15 for 0.
And while we're at it, let's also set some values to cr 1, 7 and 13, so we can actually be sure that they will be zeroed.
--- s390x/smp.c | 19 ++++++++++++++++++- 1 file changed, 18 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
s390x/smp.c +18 -1
@@ -176,16 +176,31 @@ static void test_emcall(void)report_prefix_pop (); } +/* Used to dirty registers of cpu #1 before it is reset */ +static void test_func_initial (void ) +{ +lctlg (1 ,0x42000UL ); +lctlg (7 ,0x43000UL ); +lctlg (13 ,0x44000UL ); + testflag =1 ; +mb (); +cpu_loop (); +} +static void test_reset_initial (void ) {struct cpu_status *status =alloc_pages (0 ); +uint64_t nullp[12 ] = {};struct psw psw; psw.mask =extract_psw_mask (); - psw.addr = (unsigned long )test_func; + psw.addr = (unsigned long )test_func_initial;report_prefix_push ("reset initial" ); + testflag =0 ; +mb ();smp_cpu_start (1 , psw); +wait_for_flag ();sigp_retry (1 ,SIGP_INITIAL_CPU_RESET ,0 ,NULL );sigp (1 ,SIGP_STORE_STATUS_AT_ADDRESS , (uintptr_t )status,NULL );
@@ -196,6 +211,8 @@ static void test_reset_initial(void)report (!status->fpc,"fpc" );report (!status->cputm,"cpu timer" );report (!status->todpr,"todpr" ); +report (!memcmp (&status->crs[1 ], nullp,sizeof (status->crs[1 ]) *12 ),"cr1-13 == 0" ); +report (status->crs[15 ] ==0 ,"cr15 == 0" );report_prefix_pop ();report_prefix_push ("initialized" );
Signature · 1 line
2.20.1
Re: [kvm-unit-tests PATCH v2 6/7] s390x: smp: Test all CRs on initial reset
Quoted 18 lines · Janosch Frank
All CRs are set to 0 and CRs 0 and 14 are set to pre-defined values, so we also need to test 1-13 and 15 for 0.
And while we're at it, let's also set some values to cr 1, 7 and 13, so we can actually be sure that they will be zeroed.
Signed-off-by Janosch Frank <[email protected]>--- s390x/smp.c | 19 ++++++++++++++++++- 1 file changed, 18 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)s390x/smp.c +0
-0@@ -176,16 +176,31 @@ static void test_emcall(void)report_prefix_pop (); }
s390x/smp.c static void test_emcall(void) · line 187
Quoted 10 lines
s390x/smp.c +9
-0+/* Used to dirty registers of cpu #1 before it is reset */ +static void test_func_initial (void ) +{ +lctlg (1 ,0x42000UL ); +lctlg (7 ,0x43000UL ); +lctlg (13 ,0x44000UL ); + testflag =1 ; +mb (); +cpu_loop ();
Can we make cpu_loop() the default when this function returns? (IOW, an endless loop whenever a cpu finished executing the function?)
Do we need the mb() here?
Quoted 30 lines
s390x/smp.c +9
-1+} +static void test_reset_initial (void ) {struct cpu_status *status =alloc_pages (0 ); +uint64_t nullp[12 ] = {};struct psw psw; psw.mask =extract_psw_mask (); - psw.addr = (unsigned long )test_func; + psw.addr = (unsigned long )test_func_initial;report_prefix_push ("reset initial" ); + testflag =0 ; +mb ();smp_cpu_start (1 , psw); +wait_for_flag ();sigp_retry (1 ,SIGP_INITIAL_CPU_RESET ,0 ,NULL );sigp (1 ,SIGP_STORE_STATUS_AT_ADDRESS , (uintptr_t )status,NULL );@@ -196,6 +211,8 @@ static void test_reset_initial(void)report (!status->fpc,"fpc" );report (!status->cputm,"cpu timer" );report (!status->todpr,"todpr" ); +report (!memcmp (&status->crs[1 ], nullp,sizeof (status->crs[1 ]) *12 ),"cr1-13 == 0" ); +report (status->crs[15 ] ==0 ,"cr15 == 0" );report_prefix_pop ();report_prefix_push ("initialized" );
Signature · 3 lines
Thanks, David / dhildenb
Re: [kvm-unit-tests PATCH v2 6/7] s390x: smp: Test all CRs on initial reset
Quoted 20 lines · David Hildenbrand
Quoted 19 lines · Janosch Frank
All CRs are set to 0 and CRs 0 and 14 are set to pre-defined values, so we also need to test 1-13 and 15 for 0.
And while we're at it, let's also set some values to cr 1, 7 and 13, so we can actually be sure that they will be zeroed.
Signed-off-by Janosch Frank <[email protected]>--- s390x/smp.c | 19 ++++++++++++++++++- 1 file changed, 18 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)s390x/smp.c +0
-0@@ -176,16 +176,31 @@ static void test_emcall(void)report_prefix_pop (); }
Quoted 12 lines
s390x/smp.c static void test_emcall(void) · line 187
Quoted 9 lines
s390x/smp.c +9
-0+/* Used to dirty registers of cpu #1 before it is reset */ +static void test_func_initial (void ) +{ +lctlg (1 ,0x42000UL ); +lctlg (7 ,0x43000UL ); +lctlg (13 ,0x44000UL ); + testflag =1 ; +mb (); +cpu_loop ();Can we make
cpu_loop()the default when this function returns? (IOW, an endless loop whenever a cpu finished executing the function?)
So adding it to cstart64.S after the br 14?
Quoted 2 lines
Do we need the
mb()here?
Would the compiler reorder the lctlcg and testflag if it could?
Quoted 33 lines
Quoted 31 lines
s390x/smp.c +9
-1+} +static void test_reset_initial (void ) {struct cpu_status *status =alloc_pages (0 ); +uint64_t nullp[12 ] = {};struct psw psw; psw.mask =extract_psw_mask (); - psw.addr = (unsigned long )test_func; + psw.addr = (unsigned long )test_func_initial;report_prefix_push ("reset initial" ); + testflag =0 ; +mb ();smp_cpu_start (1 , psw); +wait_for_flag ();sigp_retry (1 ,SIGP_INITIAL_CPU_RESET ,0 ,NULL );sigp (1 ,SIGP_STORE_STATUS_AT_ADDRESS , (uintptr_t )status,NULL );@@ -196,6 +211,8 @@ static void test_reset_initial(void)report (!status->fpc,"fpc" );report (!status->cputm,"cpu timer" );report (!status->todpr,"todpr" ); +report (!memcmp (&status->crs[1 ], nullp,sizeof (status->crs[1 ]) *12 ),"cr1-13 == 0" ); +report (status->crs[15 ] ==0 ,"cr15 == 0" );report_prefix_pop ();report_prefix_push ("initialized" );
Re: [kvm-unit-tests PATCH v2 6/7] s390x: smp: Test all CRs on initial reset
Quoted 34 lines · Janosch Frank
Quoted 20 lines · David Hildenbrand
Quoted 19 lines · Janosch Frank
All CRs are set to 0 and CRs 0 and 14 are set to pre-defined values, so we also need to test 1-13 and 15 for 0.
And while we're at it, let's also set some values to cr 1, 7 and 13, so we can actually be sure that they will be zeroed.
Signed-off-by Janosch Frank <[email protected]>--- s390x/smp.c | 19 ++++++++++++++++++- 1 file changed, 18 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)s390x/smp.c +0
-0@@ -176,16 +176,31 @@ static void test_emcall(void)report_prefix_pop (); }Quoted 12 lines
s390x/smp.c static void test_emcall(void) · line 187
Quoted 9 lines
s390x/smp.c +9
-0+/* Used to dirty registers of cpu #1 before it is reset */ +static void test_func_initial (void ) +{ +lctlg (1 ,0x42000UL ); +lctlg (7 ,0x43000UL ); +lctlg (13 ,0x44000UL ); + testflag =1 ; +mb (); +cpu_loop ();Can we make
cpu_loop()the default when this function returns? (IOW, an endless loop whenever a cpu finished executing the function?)
Quoted 1 line
So adding it to
cstart64.Safter the br 14?
Yes I think so.
Quoted 5 lines
Quoted 3 lines
Do we need the
mb()here?Would the compiler reorder the lctlcg and testflag if it could?
lctlg() does not have a "memory" constraint, so I guess it would be valid if it would reorder.
I assume the mb() would have to be moved in front of the testflag=1?
Signature · 3 lines
Thanks, David / dhildenb
PATCH v2 7/7 s390x: smp: Dirty fpc before initial reset test
In reply to Janosch FrankLet's dirty the fpc, before we test if the initial reset sets it to 0.
--- s390x/smp.c | 3 +++ 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+)
s390x/smp.c +3 -0
@@ -179,6 +179,9 @@ static void test_emcall(void)/* Used to dirty registers of cpu #1 before it is reset */ static void test_func_initial (void ) { + asmvolatile ( +" sfpc %0\n" + : :"d" (0x11 ) : );lctlg (1 ,0x42000UL );lctlg (7 ,0x43000UL );lctlg (13 ,0x44000UL );
Signature · 1 line
2.20.1
Re: [kvm-unit-tests PATCH v2 7/7] s390x: smp: Dirty fpc before initial reset test
Quoted 14 lines · Janosch Frank
Let's dirty the fpc, before we test if the initial reset sets it to 0.
Signed-off-by Janosch Frank <[email protected]>Reviewed-by Thomas Huth <[email protected]>Reviewed-by Cornelia Huck <[email protected]>--- s390x/smp.c | 3 +++ 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+)s390x/smp.c +0
-0
s390x/smp.c static void test_emcall(void) · line 184
Quoted 6 lines
s390x/smp.c +3
-0@@ -179,6 +179,9 @@ static void test_emcall(void)/* Used to dirty registers of cpu #1 before it is reset */ static void test_func_initial (void ) { + asmvolatile ( +" sfpc %0\n" + : :"d" (0x11 ) : );
FWIW, I'd make this one easier to read
asm volatile("sfpc %0\n" :: "d" (0x11));
or sth like that
Quoted 4 lines
s390x/smp.c +0
-0lctlg (1 ,0x42000UL );lctlg (7 ,0x43000UL );lctlg (13 ,0x44000UL );
Signature · 3 lines
Thanks, David / dhildenb
Re: [kvm-unit-tests PATCH v2 7/7] s390x: smp: Dirty fpc before initial reset test
Quoted 24 lines · David Hildenbrand
Quoted 14 lines · Janosch Frank
Let's dirty the fpc, before we test if the initial reset sets it to 0.
Signed-off-by Janosch Frank <[email protected]>Reviewed-by Thomas Huth <[email protected]>Reviewed-by Cornelia Huck <[email protected]>--- s390x/smp.c | 3 +++ 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+)s390x/smp.c +0
-0s390x/smp.c static void test_emcall(void) · line 184
Quoted 6 lines
s390x/smp.c +3
-0@@ -179,6 +179,9 @@ static void test_emcall(void)/* Used to dirty registers of cpu #1 before it is reset */ static void test_func_initial (void ) { + asmvolatile ( +" sfpc %0\n" + : :"d" (0x11 ) : );FWIW, I'd make this one easier to read
Quoted 1 line
asm
volatile("sfpc %0\n" :: "d" (0x11));
By the way, since it's only one line, you can also drop the \n here.
Thomas
Re: [kvm-unit-tests PATCH v2 7/7] s390x: smp: Dirty fpc before initial reset test
Quoted 25 lines · Thomas Huth
Quoted 24 lines · David Hildenbrand
Quoted 14 lines · Janosch Frank
Let's dirty the fpc, before we test if the initial reset sets it to 0.
Signed-off-by Janosch Frank <[email protected]>Reviewed-by Thomas Huth <[email protected]>Reviewed-by Cornelia Huck <[email protected]>--- s390x/smp.c | 3 +++ 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+)s390x/smp.c +0
-0s390x/smp.c static void test_emcall(void) · line 184
Quoted 6 lines
s390x/smp.c +3
-0@@ -179,6 +179,9 @@ static void test_emcall(void)/* Used to dirty registers of cpu #1 before it is reset */ static void test_func_initial (void ) { + asmvolatile ( +" sfpc %0\n" + : :"d" (0x11 ) : );FWIW, I'd make this one easier to read
Quoted 6 lines
Quoted 1 line
asm
volatile("sfpc %0\n" :: "d" (0x11));By the way, since it's only one line, you can also drop the \n here.
Thomas
Both suggestions applied :)
Thanks!