s390x: smp: Improve smp code and reset checks
v4 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
V4:
* Introduce set_flag() for manipulating testflag
* Cleanup of stray braces and mb()s
v3:
* Added patch to introduce cpu loop in cpu setup
* Added patch that removes cpu loops in favor of the previously introduced one
* Fixed inline assembly for fpc dirtying
* Moved cpu stop hunk from first into the second patch
* Reworked patch #4 commit message and added a comment when waiting for PU
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)
* nullp is now an array
Janosch Frank (9):
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: Loop if secondary cpu returns into cpu setup again
s390x: smp: Remove unneeded cpu loops
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 | 53 ++++++++++++++---------- s390x/cstart64.S | 4 ++ s390x/smp.c | 93 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--------------- 4 files changed, 106 insertions(+), 64 deletions(-)
Signature · 1 line
2.20.1
PATCH v4 1/9 s390x: smp: Cleanup smp.c
Let's remove a lot of badly formatted code by introducing the wait_for_flag() and set_flag functions.
Also let's remove some stray spaces and always set the tesflag before using it.
--- s390x/smp.c | 55 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--------------------- 1 file changed, 33 insertions(+), 22 deletions(-)
s390x/smp.c +33 -22
@@ -22,6 +22,19 @@static int testflag =0 ; +static void wait_for_flag (void ) +{ +while (!testflag) +mb (); +} + +static void set_flag (int val) +{ +mb (); + testflag = val; +mb (); +} +static void cpu_loop (void ) {for (;;) {}
@@ -29,21 +42,19 @@ static void cpu_loop(void)static void test_func (void ) { - testflag =1 ; -mb (); +set_flag (1 );cpu_loop (); }static void test_start (void ) {struct psw psw; - psw.mask =extract_psw_mask (); + psw.mask =extract_psw_mask (); psw.addr = (unsigned long )test_func; +set_flag (0 );smp_cpu_setup (1 , psw); -while (!testflag) { -mb (); - } +wait_for_flag ();report (1 ,"start" ); }
@@ -112,27 +123,27 @@ static void ecall(void) mask =extract_psw_mask (); mask |=PSW_MASK_EXT ;load_psw_mask (mask); - testflag =1 ; +set_flag (1 );while (lc->ext_int_code !=0x1202 ) {mb (); }report (1 ,"ecall" ); - testflag=1 ; +set_flag (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 ; +set_flag (0 );smp_cpu_destroy (1 );smp_cpu_setup (1 , psw); -while (!testflag) {mb (); } - testflag=0 ; +wait_for_flag (); +set_flag (0 );sigp (1 ,SIGP_EXTERNAL_CALL ,0 ,NULL ); -while (!testflag) {mb ();} +wait_for_flag ();smp_cpu_stop (1 );report_prefix_pop (); }
@@ -147,27 +158,27 @@ static void emcall(void) mask =extract_psw_mask (); mask |=PSW_MASK_EXT ;load_psw_mask (mask); - testflag=1 ; +set_flag (1 );while (lc->ext_int_code !=0x1201 ) {mb (); }report (1 ,"ecall" ); - testflag =1 ; +set_flag (1 ); }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 ; +set_flag (0 );smp_cpu_destroy (1 );smp_cpu_setup (1 , psw); -while (!testflag) {mb (); } - testflag=0 ; +wait_for_flag (); +set_flag (0 );sigp (1 ,SIGP_EMERGENCY_SIGNAL ,0 ,NULL ); -while (!testflag) {mb (); } +wait_for_flag ();smp_cpu_stop (1 );report_prefix_pop (); }
@@ -177,7 +188,7 @@ 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 +219,7 @@ 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
PATCH v4 2/9 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 | 21 ++++++++++++++------- 1 file changed, 14 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
s390x/smp.c +14 -7
@@ -53,7 +53,7 @@ static void test_start(void) psw.addr = (unsigned long )test_func;set_flag (0 ); -smp_cpu_setup (1 , psw); +smp_cpu_start (1 , psw);wait_for_flag ();report (1 ,"start" ); }
@@ -109,6 +109,7 @@ 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 (); }
@@ -137,9 +138,8 @@ static void test_ecall(void)report_prefix_push ("ecall" );set_flag (0 ); -smp_cpu_destroy (1 ); -smp_cpu_setup (1 , psw); +smp_cpu_start (1 , psw);wait_for_flag ();set_flag (0 );sigp (1 ,SIGP_EXTERNAL_CALL ,0 ,NULL );
@@ -172,9 +172,8 @@ static void test_emcall(void)report_prefix_push ("emcall" );set_flag (0 ); -smp_cpu_destroy (1 ); -smp_cpu_setup (1 , psw); +smp_cpu_start (1 , psw);wait_for_flag ();set_flag (0 );sigp (1 ,SIGP_EMERGENCY_SIGNAL ,0 ,NULL );
@@ -192,7 +191,7 @@ 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 );
@@ -223,7 +222,7 @@ 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" );
@@ -232,6 +231,7 @@ static void test_reset(void)int main (void ) { +struct psw psw;report_prefix_push ("smp" );if (smp_query_num_cpus () ==1 ) {
@@ -239,6 +239,12 @@ 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 ();
@@ -247,6 +253,7 @@ 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 v4 2/9] s390x: smp: Only use smp_cpu_setup once
Quoted 95 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 | 21 ++++++++++++++------- 1 file changed, 14 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)s390x/smp.c +13
-7@@ -53,7 +53,7 @@ static void test_start(void) psw.addr = (unsigned long )test_func;set_flag (0 ); -smp_cpu_setup (1 , psw); +smp_cpu_start (1 , psw);wait_for_flag ();report (1 ,"start" ); }@@ -109,6 +109,7 @@ 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 (); }@@ -137,9 +138,8 @@ static void test_ecall(void)report_prefix_push ("ecall" );set_flag (0 ); -smp_cpu_destroy (1 ); -smp_cpu_setup (1 , psw); +smp_cpu_start (1 , psw);wait_for_flag ();set_flag (0 );sigp (1 ,SIGP_EXTERNAL_CALL ,0 ,NULL );@@ -172,9 +172,8 @@ static void test_emcall(void)report_prefix_push ("emcall" );set_flag (0 ); -smp_cpu_destroy (1 ); -smp_cpu_setup (1 , psw); +smp_cpu_start (1 , psw);wait_for_flag ();set_flag (0 );sigp (1 ,SIGP_EMERGENCY_SIGNAL ,0 ,NULL );@@ -192,7 +191,7 @@ 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 );@@ -223,7 +222,7 @@ 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" );@@ -232,6 +231,7 @@ static void test_reset(void)int main (void ) { +struct psw psw;report_prefix_push ("smp" );if (smp_query_num_cpus () ==1 ) {@@ -239,6 +239,12 @@ 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 259
Quoted 7 lines
s390x/smp.c +1
-0@@ -247,6 +253,7 @@ int main(void)test_emcall ();test_reset ();test_reset_initial (); +smp_cpu_destroy (1 ); done:report_prefix_pop ();
With this patch, I get timeouts under TCG. Seems to loop forever.
Signature · 3 lines
Thanks, David / dhildenb
Re: [kvm-unit-tests PATCH v4 2/9] s390x: smp: Only use smp_cpu_setup once
Quoted 100 lines · David Hildenbrand
Quoted 99 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 | 21 ++++++++++++++------- 1 file changed, 14 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)s390x/smp.c +14
-7@@ -53,7 +53,7 @@ static void test_start(void) psw.addr = (unsigned long )test_func;set_flag (0 ); -smp_cpu_setup (1 , psw); +smp_cpu_start (1 , psw);wait_for_flag ();report (1 ,"start" ); }@@ -109,6 +109,7 @@ 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 (); }@@ -137,9 +138,8 @@ static void test_ecall(void)report_prefix_push ("ecall" );set_flag (0 ); -smp_cpu_destroy (1 ); -smp_cpu_setup (1 , psw); +smp_cpu_start (1 , psw);wait_for_flag ();set_flag (0 );sigp (1 ,SIGP_EXTERNAL_CALL ,0 ,NULL );@@ -172,9 +172,8 @@ static void test_emcall(void)report_prefix_push ("emcall" );set_flag (0 ); -smp_cpu_destroy (1 ); -smp_cpu_setup (1 , psw); +smp_cpu_start (1 , psw);wait_for_flag ();set_flag (0 );sigp (1 ,SIGP_EMERGENCY_SIGNAL ,0 ,NULL );@@ -192,7 +191,7 @@ 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 );@@ -223,7 +222,7 @@ 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" );@@ -232,6 +231,7 @@ static void test_reset(void)int main (void ) { +struct psw psw;report_prefix_push ("smp" );if (smp_query_num_cpus () ==1 ) {@@ -239,6 +239,12 @@ 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 ();@@ -247,6 +253,7 @@ int main(void)test_emcall ();test_reset ();test_reset_initial (); +smp_cpu_destroy (1 );
Quoted 6 lines
s390x/smp.c int main(void) · line 259
Quoted 3 lines
s390x/smp.c +0
-0done:report_prefix_pop ();With this patch, I get timeouts under TCG. Seems to loop forever.
The branch works on lpar and kvm without a problem.
Re: [kvm-unit-tests PATCH v4 2/9] s390x: smp: Only use smp_cpu_setup once
Quoted 101 lines · Janosch Frank
Quoted 100 lines · David Hildenbrand
Quoted 99 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 | 21 ++++++++++++++------- 1 file changed, 14 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)s390x/smp.c +14
-7@@ -53,7 +53,7 @@ static void test_start(void) psw.addr = (unsigned long )test_func;set_flag (0 ); -smp_cpu_setup (1 , psw); +smp_cpu_start (1 , psw);wait_for_flag ();report (1 ,"start" ); }@@ -109,6 +109,7 @@ 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 (); }@@ -137,9 +138,8 @@ static void test_ecall(void)report_prefix_push ("ecall" );set_flag (0 ); -smp_cpu_destroy (1 ); -smp_cpu_setup (1 , psw); +smp_cpu_start (1 , psw);wait_for_flag ();set_flag (0 );sigp (1 ,SIGP_EXTERNAL_CALL ,0 ,NULL );@@ -172,9 +172,8 @@ static void test_emcall(void)report_prefix_push ("emcall" );set_flag (0 ); -smp_cpu_destroy (1 ); -smp_cpu_setup (1 , psw); +smp_cpu_start (1 , psw);wait_for_flag ();set_flag (0 );sigp (1 ,SIGP_EMERGENCY_SIGNAL ,0 ,NULL );@@ -192,7 +191,7 @@ 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 );@@ -223,7 +222,7 @@ 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" );@@ -232,6 +231,7 @@ static void test_reset(void)int main (void ) { +struct psw psw;report_prefix_push ("smp" );if (smp_query_num_cpus () ==1 ) {@@ -239,6 +239,12 @@ 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 ();@@ -247,6 +253,7 @@ int main(void)test_emcall ();test_reset ();test_reset_initial (); +smp_cpu_destroy (1 );
Quoted 7 lines
Quoted 6 lines
s390x/smp.c int main(void) · line 259
Quoted 3 lines
s390x/smp.c +0
-0done:report_prefix_pop ();With this patch, I get timeouts under TCG. Seems to loop forever.
The branch works on lpar and kvm without a problem.
Which could mean that either TCG is broken or your test is broken (e.g., a race condition that does not trigger under LPAR because it's faster, or some undocumented/not guaranteed behavior).
Signature · 3 lines
Thanks, David / dhildenb
Re: [kvm-unit-tests PATCH v4 2/9] s390x: smp: Only use smp_cpu_setup once
Quoted 108 lines · David Hildenbrand
Quoted 107 lines · Janosch Frank
Quoted 106 lines · David Hildenbrand
Quoted 95 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 | 21 ++++++++++++++------- 1 file changed, 14 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)s390x/smp.c +13
-7@@ -53,7 +53,7 @@ static void test_start(void) psw.addr = (unsigned long )test_func;set_flag (0 ); -smp_cpu_setup (1 , psw); +smp_cpu_start (1 , psw);wait_for_flag ();report (1 ,"start" ); }@@ -109,6 +109,7 @@ 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 (); }@@ -137,9 +138,8 @@ static void test_ecall(void)report_prefix_push ("ecall" );set_flag (0 ); -smp_cpu_destroy (1 ); -smp_cpu_setup (1 , psw); +smp_cpu_start (1 , psw);wait_for_flag ();set_flag (0 );sigp (1 ,SIGP_EXTERNAL_CALL ,0 ,NULL );@@ -172,9 +172,8 @@ static void test_emcall(void)report_prefix_push ("emcall" );set_flag (0 ); -smp_cpu_destroy (1 ); -smp_cpu_setup (1 , psw); +smp_cpu_start (1 , psw);wait_for_flag ();set_flag (0 );sigp (1 ,SIGP_EMERGENCY_SIGNAL ,0 ,NULL );@@ -192,7 +191,7 @@ 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 );@@ -223,7 +222,7 @@ 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" );@@ -232,6 +231,7 @@ static void test_reset(void)int main (void ) { +struct psw psw;report_prefix_push ("smp" );if (smp_query_num_cpus () ==1 ) {@@ -239,6 +239,12 @@ 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 259
Quoted 7 lines
s390x/smp.c +1
-0@@ -247,6 +253,7 @@ int main(void)test_emcall ();test_reset ();test_reset_initial (); +smp_cpu_destroy (1 ); done:report_prefix_pop ();With this patch, I get timeouts under TCG. Seems to loop forever.
Quoted 6 lines
Quoted 1 line
The branch works on lpar and kvm without a problem.
Which could mean that either TCG is broken or your test is broken (e.g., a race condition that does not trigger under LPAR because it's faster, or some undocumented/not guaranteed behavior).
So, the test works every now and then under TCG.
It seems to work very reliably with "-smp 2"
With smp 8, it sometimes works, sometimes not.
t480s: ~/git/kvm-unit-tests (kein Branch, Rebase von s390x-prep) $ ./s390x-run s390x/smp.elf -smp 8 /home/dhildenb/git/qemu/s390x-softmmu/qemu-system-s390x -nodefaults -nographic -machine s390-ccw-virtio,accel=tcg -chardev stdio,id=con0 -device sclpconsole,chardev=con0 -kernel s390x/smp.elf -smp 8 # -initrd /tmp/tmp.UL9ZaqoKBW
SMP: Initializing, found 8 cpus
PASS: smp: start
PASS: smp: stop
PASS: smp: stop store status: prefix
PASS: smp: stop store status: stack
PASS: smp: store status at address: running: incorrect state
PASS: smp: store status at address: running: status not written
PASS: smp: store status at address: stopped: status written
PASS: smp: ecall: ecall
PASS: smp: emcall: ecall
PASS: smp: cpu reset: cpu stopped
PASS: smp: reset initial: clear: psw
PASS: smp: reset initial: clear: prefix
PASS: smp: reset initial: clear: fpc
PASS: smp: reset initial: clear: cpu timer
PASS: smp: reset initial: clear: todpr
PASS: smp: reset initial: initialized: cr0 == 0xE0
PASS: smp: reset initial: initialized: cr14 == 0xC2000000
PASS: smp: reset initial: cpu stopped
SUMMARY: 18 tests
EXIT: STATUS=1
t480s: ~/git/kvm-unit-tests (kein Branch, Rebase von s390x-prep) $ ./s390x-run s390x/smp.elf -smp 8 /home/dhildenb/git/qemu/s390x-softmmu/qemu-system-s390x -nodefaults -nographic -machine s390-ccw-virtio,accel=tcg -chardev stdio,id=con0 -device sclpconsole,chardev=con0 -kernel s390x/smp.elf -smp 8 # -initrd /tmp/tmp.csifrEDgnC
SMP: Initializing, found 8 cpus
PASS: smp: start
PASS: smp: stop
PASS: smp: stop store status: prefix
FAIL: smp: stop store status: stack
PASS: smp: store status at address: running: incorrect state
PASS: smp: store status at address: running: status not written
PASS: smp: store status at address: stopped: status written [... hang]
Note that there is a previous failure for "smp: stop store status:
stack" whenever the test will hang later.
Signature · 3 lines
Thanks, David / dhildenb
Re: [kvm-unit-tests PATCH v4 2/9] s390x: smp: Only use smp_cpu_setup once
Quoted 168 lines · David Hildenbrand
Quoted 108 lines · David Hildenbrand
Quoted 107 lines · Janosch Frank
Quoted 106 lines · David Hildenbrand
Quoted 95 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 | 21 ++++++++++++++------- 1 file changed, 14 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)s390x/smp.c +13
-7@@ -53,7 +53,7 @@ static void test_start(void) psw.addr = (unsigned long )test_func;set_flag (0 ); -smp_cpu_setup (1 , psw); +smp_cpu_start (1 , psw);wait_for_flag ();report (1 ,"start" ); }@@ -109,6 +109,7 @@ 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 (); }@@ -137,9 +138,8 @@ static void test_ecall(void)report_prefix_push ("ecall" );set_flag (0 ); -smp_cpu_destroy (1 ); -smp_cpu_setup (1 , psw); +smp_cpu_start (1 , psw);wait_for_flag ();set_flag (0 );sigp (1 ,SIGP_EXTERNAL_CALL ,0 ,NULL );@@ -172,9 +172,8 @@ static void test_emcall(void)report_prefix_push ("emcall" );set_flag (0 ); -smp_cpu_destroy (1 ); -smp_cpu_setup (1 , psw); +smp_cpu_start (1 , psw);wait_for_flag ();set_flag (0 );sigp (1 ,SIGP_EMERGENCY_SIGNAL ,0 ,NULL );@@ -192,7 +191,7 @@ 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 );@@ -223,7 +222,7 @@ 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" );@@ -232,6 +231,7 @@ static void test_reset(void)int main (void ) { +struct psw psw;report_prefix_push ("smp" );if (smp_query_num_cpus () ==1 ) {@@ -239,6 +239,12 @@ 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 259
Quoted 7 lines
s390x/smp.c +1
-0@@ -247,6 +253,7 @@ int main(void)test_emcall ();test_reset ();test_reset_initial (); +smp_cpu_destroy (1 ); done:report_prefix_pop ();With this patch, I get timeouts under TCG. Seems to loop forever.
Quoted 6 lines
Quoted 1 line
The branch works on lpar and kvm without a problem.
Which could mean that either TCG is broken or your test is broken (e.g., a race condition that does not trigger under LPAR because it's faster, or some undocumented/not guaranteed behavior).
So, the test works every now and then under TCG.
It seems to work very reliably with "-smp 2"
With smp 8, it sometimes works, sometimes not.
t480s: ~/git/kvm-unit-tests (kein Branch, Rebase von s390x-prep) $ ./s390x-run s390x/smp.elf -smp 8
/home/dhildenb/git/qemu/s390x-softmmu/qemu-system-s390x-nodefaults(quoted diff) +0
-2-nographic -machine s390-ccw-virtio,accel=tcg -chardev stdio,id=con0 -device sclpconsole,chardev=con0 -kernel s390x/smp.elf -smp 8 # -initrd
/tmp/tmp.UL9ZaqoKBW
SMP: Initializing, found 8 cpus
PASS: smp: start
PASS: smp: stop
PASS: smp: stop store status: prefix
PASS: smp: stop store status: stack
PASS: smp: store status at address: running: incorrect state
PASS: smp: store status at address: running: status not written
PASS: smp: store status at address: stopped: status written
PASS: smp: ecall: ecall
PASS: smp: emcall: ecall
PASS: smp: cpu reset: cpu stopped
PASS: smp: reset initial: clear: psw
PASS: smp: reset initial: clear: prefix
PASS: smp: reset initial: clear: fpc
PASS: smp: reset initial: clear: cpu timer
PASS: smp: reset initial: clear: todpr
PASS: smp: reset initial: initialized: cr0 ==0xE0
PASS: smp: reset initial: initialized: cr14 ==0xC2000000
PASS: smp: reset initial: cpu stopped
SUMMARY: 18 testsEXIT: STATUS=1
t480s: ~/git/kvm-unit-tests (kein Branch, Rebase von s390x-prep) $ ./s390x-run s390x/smp.elf -smp 8
/home/dhildenb/git/qemu/s390x-softmmu/qemu-system-s390x-nodefaults(quoted diff) +0
-2-nographic -machine s390-ccw-virtio,accel=tcg -chardev stdio,id=con0 -device sclpconsole,chardev=con0 -kernel s390x/smp.elf -smp 8 # -initrd
/tmp/tmp.csifrEDgnC
SMP: Initializing, found 8 cpus
PASS: smp: start
PASS: smp: stop
PASS: smp: stop store status: prefix
FAIL: smp: stop store status: stack
PASS: smp: store status at address: running: incorrect state
PASS: smp: store status at address: running: status not written
PASS: smp: store status at address: stopped: status written [... hang]
Quoted 4 lines
Note that there is a previous failure for "smp: stop store status:
stack" whenever the test will hang later.
In smp_cpu_stop_nolock(), when you do a SIGP_STOP_AND_STORE_STATUS, you wait until the target CPU is stopped.
This does, however, not guarantee that the state has already been stored
- especially not if the target CPU is already stopped.
Stop and Store Status
The addressed CPU performs the stop function, fol- lowed by the store-status operation (see “Store Sta- tus” on page 4-82). The CPU does not necessarily complete the operation, or even enter the stopped state, during the execution of SIGNAL PROCES- SOR ..."
So there is a race in your code. I do wonder how you can test if the order on the target CPU has been executed, without issuing another SIGP operation (e.g., restart) or by testing if the content to be stored was all changed ...
Signature · 3 lines
Thanks, David / dhildenb
PATCH v4 3/9 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 v4 3/9] s390x: Add cpu id to interrupt error prints
Quoted 25 lines · Janosch Frank
It's good to know which cpu broke the test.
Signed-off-by Janosch Frank <[email protected]>Reviewed-by David Hildenbrand <[email protected]>Reviewed-by Cornelia Huck <[email protected]>--- lib/s390x/interrupt.c | 20 ++++++++++---------- 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)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); pgm_int_expected = false;
lib/s390x/interrupt.c void handle_ext_int(void) · line 123
Quoted 7 lines
lib/s390x/interrupt.c +2
-2@@ -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);
The arguments are in the wrong order, stap() should come after the int code...
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); }
PATCH 1/1 s390x: Add cpu id to interrupt error prints
It's good to know which cpu broke the test.
---
Fixed stap location in ext handler.
--- 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" , + lc->ext_int_code,stap (), 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
PATCH v4 4/9 s390x: smp: Rework cpu start and active tracking
In reply to Janosch FrankThe architecture specifies that processing sigp orders may be asynchronous, and this is indeed the case on some hypervisors, so we need to wait until the cpu runs before we return from the setup/start function.
As there was a lot of duplicate code, a common function for cpu restarts has been introduced.
--- lib/s390x/smp.c | 50 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--------------------- 1 file changed, 29 insertions(+), 21 deletions(-)
lib/s390x/smp.c +29 -21
@@ -104,35 +104,46 @@ 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; +/* +* The order has been accepted, but the actual restart may not +* have been performed yet, so wait until the cpu is running. +*/ +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 +203,7 @@ 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 v4 4/9] s390x: smp: Rework cpu start and active tracking
Quoted 36 lines · Janosch Frank
The architecture specifies that processing sigp orders may be asynchronous, and this is indeed the case on some hypervisors, so we need to wait until the cpu runs before we return from the setup/start function.
As there was a lot of duplicate code, a common function for cpu restarts has been introduced.
Signed-off-by Janosch Frank <[email protected]>Reviewed-by Cornelia Huck <[email protected]>--- lib/s390x/smp.c | 50 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--------------------- 1 file changed, 29 insertions(+), 21 deletions(-)lib/s390x/smp.c +14
-0@@ -104,35 +104,46 @@ 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;
lib/s390x/smp.c int smp_cpu_stop_store_status(uint16_t addr) · line 130
Quoted 10 lines
lib/s390x/smp.c +10
-0+/* +* The order has been accepted, but the actual restart may not +* have been performed yet, so wait until the cpu is running. +*/ +while (!smp_cpu_running (addr)) +mb (); + cpu->active = true; +return 0 ; +} +
Just wondering what happened to my comment
"Should you make sure to stop the CPU before issuing the restart? Otherwise you will get false positives if it is still running (but hasn't processed the RESTART yet)"
?
IOW, should we have a SIGP_STOP before issuing the SIGP_RESTART?
Signature · 3 lines
Thanks, David / dhildenb
Re: [kvm-unit-tests PATCH v4 4/9] s390x: smp: Rework cpu start and active tracking
Quoted 41 lines · David Hildenbrand
Quoted 40 lines · Janosch Frank
The architecture specifies that processing sigp orders may be asynchronous, and this is indeed the case on some hypervisors, so we need to wait until the cpu runs before we return from the setup/start function.
As there was a lot of duplicate code, a common function for cpu restarts has been introduced.
Signed-off-by Janosch Frank <[email protected]>Reviewed-by Cornelia Huck <[email protected]>--- lib/s390x/smp.c | 50 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--------------------- 1 file changed, 29 insertions(+), 21 deletions(-)lib/s390x/smp.c +18
-0@@ -104,35 +104,46 @@ 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; +/* +* The order has been accepted, but the actual restart may not +* have been performed yet, so wait until the cpu is running. +*/
Quoted 8 lines
lib/s390x/smp.c int smp_cpu_stop_store_status(uint16_t addr) · line 130
Quoted 6 lines
lib/s390x/smp.c +6
-0+while (!smp_cpu_running (addr)) +mb (); + cpu->active = true; +return 0 ; +} +Just wondering what happened to my comment
It probably got lost in your other change requests :)
Quoted 8 lines
"Should you make sure to stop the CPU before issuing the restart? Otherwise you will get false positives if it is still running (but hasn't processed the RESTART yet)"
?
IOW, should we have a
SIGP_STOPbefore issuing theSIGP_RESTART?
Yes, that would be cleaner.
PATCH 1/1 s390x: smp: Rework cpu start and active tracking
In reply to David HildenbrandThe architecture specifies that processing sigp orders may be asynchronous, and this is indeed the case on some hypervisors, so we need to wait until the cpu runs before we return from the setup/start function.
As there was a lot of duplicate code, a common function for cpu restarts has been introduced.
--- lib/s390x/smp.c | 56 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------------------- 1 file changed, 35 insertions(+), 21 deletions(-)
lib/s390x/smp.c +35 -21
@@ -104,35 +104,52 @@ 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; + } +/* +* Stop the cpu, so we don't have a race between a running cpu +* and the restart in the test that checks if the cpu is +* running after the restart. +*/ +smp_cpu_stop_nolock (addr, false); + rc =sigp (addr,SIGP_RESTART ,0 ,NULL ); +if (rc) +return rc; +/* +* The order has been accepted, but the actual restart may not +* have been performed yet, so wait until the cpu is running. +*/ +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 +209,7 @@ 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
PATCH v4 5/9 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 | 3 +++ s390x/cstart64.S | 2 ++ 2 files changed, 5 insertions(+)
lib/s390x/smp.c +3 -0
@@ -204,6 +204,9 @@ 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
PATCH v4 6/9 s390x: smp: Loop if secondary cpu returns into cpu setup again
In reply to Janosch FrankUp to now a secondary cpu could have returned from the function it was executing and ending up somewhere in cstart64.S. This was mostly circumvented by an endless loop in the function that it executed.
Let's add a loop to the end of the cpu setup, so we don't have to rely on added loops in the tests.
--- s390x/cstart64.S | 2 ++ 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
s390x/cstart64.S +2 -0
@@ -162,6 +162,8 @@ smp_cpu_setup_state: /* We should only go once through cpu setup and not for every restart */ stg %r14, GEN_LC_RESTART_NEW_PSW + 8 br %r14 + /* If the function returns, just loop here */ +0: j 0 pgm_int: SAVE_REGS
Signature · 1 line
2.20.1
Re: [kvm-unit-tests PATCH v4 6/9] s390x: smp: Loop if secondary cpu returns into cpu setup again
Quoted 17 lines · On Tue, 21 Jan 2020 08:42:51 -0500 Janosch Frank <[email protected]> wrote:
Up to now a secondary cpu could have returned from the function it was executing and ending up somewhere in
cstart64.S. This was mostly circumvented by an endless loop in the function that it executed.Let's add a loop to the end of the cpu setup, so we don't have to rely on added loops in the tests.
Signed-off-by Janosch Frank <[email protected]>--- s390x/cstart64.S | 2 ++ 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)s390x/cstart64.S +0
-0
s390x/cstart64.S smp_cpu_setup_state: · line 169
Quoted 8 lines
s390x/cstart64.S +2
-0@@ -162,6 +162,8 @@ smp_cpu_setup_state: /* We should only go once through cpu setup and not for every restart */ stg %r14, GEN_LC_RESTART_NEW_PSW + 8 br %r14 + /* If the function returns, just loop here */ +0: j 0 pgm_int: SAVE_REGS
Re: [kvm-unit-tests PATCH v4 6/9] s390x: smp: Loop if secondary cpu returns into cpu setup again
In reply to Janosch FrankQuoted 18 lines · Janosch Frank
Up to now a secondary cpu could have returned from the function it was executing and ending up somewhere in
cstart64.S. This was mostly circumvented by an endless loop in the function that it executed.Let's add a loop to the end of the cpu setup, so we don't have to rely on added loops in the tests.
Signed-off-by Janosch Frank <[email protected]>--- s390x/cstart64.S | 2 ++ 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)s390x/cstart64.S +0
-0
s390x/cstart64.S smp_cpu_setup_state: · line 169
Quoted 8 lines
s390x/cstart64.S +2
-0@@ -162,6 +162,8 @@ smp_cpu_setup_state: /* We should only go once through cpu setup and not for every restart */ stg %r14, GEN_LC_RESTART_NEW_PSW + 8 br %r14 + /* If the function returns, just loop here */ +0: j 0 pgm_int: SAVE_REGS
Signature · 3 lines
Thanks, David / dhildenb
Re: [kvm-unit-tests PATCH v4 6/9] s390x: smp: Loop if secondary cpu returns into cpu setup again
In reply to Janosch FrankQuoted 18 lines · Janosch Frank
Up to now a secondary cpu could have returned from the function it was executing and ending up somewhere in
cstart64.S. This was mostly circumvented by an endless loop in the function that it executed.Let's add a loop to the end of the cpu setup, so we don't have to rely on added loops in the tests.
Signed-off-by Janosch Frank <[email protected]>--- s390x/cstart64.S | 2 ++ 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)s390x/cstart64.S +0
-0
s390x/cstart64.S smp_cpu_setup_state: · line 169
Quoted 8 lines
s390x/cstart64.S +2
-0@@ -162,6 +162,8 @@ smp_cpu_setup_state: /* We should only go once through cpu setup and not for every restart */ stg %r14, GEN_LC_RESTART_NEW_PSW + 8 br %r14 + /* If the function returns, just loop here */ +0: j 0 pgm_int: SAVE_REGS
This patch collides with a patch I have still queued
Author: Janosch Frank <[email protected]> Date: Wed Dec 11 06:59:22 2019 -0500
s390x: smp: Use full PSW to bringup new cpu
Up to now we ignored the psw mask and only used the psw address when bringing up a new cpu. For DAT we need to also load the mask, so let's do that.
Message-Id: <[email protected]>
In that patch we use a lpswe to jump to the target code, not a br. So the return address will no longer be stored in %14 and this code here would stop working AFAIKS.
Shall I drop that patch for now?
Signature · 3 lines
Thanks, David / dhildenb
Re: [kvm-unit-tests PATCH v4 6/9] s390x: smp: Loop if secondary cpu returns into cpu setup again
Quoted 42 lines · David Hildenbrand
Quoted 18 lines · Janosch Frank
Up to now a secondary cpu could have returned from the function it was executing and ending up somewhere in
cstart64.S. This was mostly circumvented by an endless loop in the function that it executed.Let's add a loop to the end of the cpu setup, so we don't have to rely on added loops in the tests.
Signed-off-by Janosch Frank <[email protected]>--- s390x/cstart64.S | 2 ++ 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)s390x/cstart64.S +0
-0s390x/cstart64.S smp_cpu_setup_state: · line 169
Quoted 8 lines
s390x/cstart64.S +2
-0@@ -162,6 +162,8 @@ smp_cpu_setup_state: /* We should only go once through cpu setup and not for every restart */ stg %r14, GEN_LC_RESTART_NEW_PSW + 8 br %r14 + /* If the function returns, just loop here */ +0: j 0 pgm_int: SAVE_REGSThis patch collides with a patch I have still queued
Author: Janosch Frank <[email protected]> Date: Wed Dec 11 06:59:22 2019 -0500s390x: smp: Use full PSW to bringup new cpu
Up to now we ignored the psw mask and only used the psw address when bringing up a new cpu. For DAT we need to also load the mask, so let's do that.
Signed-off-by Janosch Frank <[email protected]>Reviewed-by David Hildenbrand <[email protected]>Message-Id: <[email protected]>
Quoted 8 lines
Signed-off-by David Hildenbrand <[email protected]>In that patch we use a lpswe to jump to the target code, not a br. So the return address will no longer be stored in %14 and this code here would stop working AFAIKS.
Shall I drop that patch for now?
Please drop "s390x: smp: Use full PSW to bringup new cpu" I will send out a fixed version of that patch soonish. It will load a label for lpswe into r14 before doing the lpswe.
PATCH v4 7/9 s390x: smp: Remove unneeded cpu loops
In reply to Janosch FrankNow that we have a loop which is executed after we return from the main function of a secondary cpu, we can remove the surplus loops.
--- s390x/smp.c | 8 +------- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 7 deletions(-)
s390x/smp.c +1 -7
@@ -35,15 +35,9 @@ static void set_flag(int val)mb (); } -static void cpu_loop (void ) -{ -for (;;) {} -} -static void test_func (void ) {set_flag (1 ); -cpu_loop (); }static void test_start (void )
@@ -241,7 +235,7 @@ int main(void)/* Setting up the cpu to give it a stack and lowcore */ psw.mask =extract_psw_mask (); - psw.addr = (unsigned long )cpu_loop; + psw.addr = (unsigned long )test_func;smp_cpu_setup (1 , psw);smp_cpu_stop (1 );
Signature · 1 line
2.20.1
Re: [kvm-unit-tests PATCH v4 7/9] s390x: smp: Remove unneeded cpu loops
Quoted 7 lines · On Tue, 21 Jan 2020 08:42:52 -0500 Janosch Frank <[email protected]> wrote:
Now that we have a loop which is executed after we return from the main function of a secondary cpu, we can remove the surplus loops.
Signed-off-by Janosch Frank <[email protected]>--- s390x/smp.c | 8 +------- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 7 deletions(-)
Re: [kvm-unit-tests PATCH v4 7/9] s390x: smp: Remove unneeded cpu loops
In reply to Janosch FrankQuoted 30 lines · Janosch Frank
Now that we have a loop which is executed after we return from the main function of a secondary cpu, we can remove the surplus loops.
Signed-off-by Janosch Frank <[email protected]>--- s390x/smp.c | 8 +------- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 7 deletions(-)s390x/smp.c +0
-6@@ -35,15 +35,9 @@ static void set_flag(int val)mb (); } -static void cpu_loop (void ) -{ -for (;;) {} -} -static void test_func (void ) {set_flag (1 ); -cpu_loop (); }static void test_start (void )
s390x/smp.c int main(void) · line 241
Quoted 8 lines
s390x/smp.c +1
-1@@ -241,7 +235,7 @@ int main(void)/* Setting up the cpu to give it a stack and lowcore */ psw.mask =extract_psw_mask (); - psw.addr = (unsigned long )cpu_loop; + psw.addr = (unsigned long )test_func;smp_cpu_setup (1 , psw);smp_cpu_stop (1 );
Signature · 3 lines
Thanks, David / dhildenb
PATCH v4 8/9 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 | 16 +++++++++++++++- 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
s390x/smp.c +15 -1
@@ -176,16 +176,28 @@ 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 ); +set_flag (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" ); +set_flag (0 );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 +208,8 @@ 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
PATCH v4 9/9 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 | 1 + 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
s390x/smp.c +1 -0
@@ -179,6 +179,7 @@ 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" ::"d" (0x11 ));lctlg (1 ,0x42000UL );lctlg (7 ,0x43000UL );lctlg (13 ,0x44000UL );
Signature · 1 line
2.20.1