Message ID | 20191211115923.9191-2-frankja@linux.ibm.com (mailing list archive) |
---|---|
State | New, archived |
Headers | show |
Series | s390x: smp: Improve setup of additional cpus | expand |
On 11.12.19 12:59, Janosch Frank wrote: > 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 <frankja@linux.ibm.com> > --- > lib/s390x/smp.c | 2 ++ > s390x/cstart64.S | 2 +- > 2 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/lib/s390x/smp.c b/lib/s390x/smp.c > index f57f420..e17751a 100644 > --- a/lib/s390x/smp.c > +++ b/lib/s390x/smp.c > @@ -185,6 +185,8 @@ int smp_cpu_setup(uint16_t addr, struct psw psw) > cpu->stack = (uint64_t *)alloc_pages(2); > > /* Start without DAT and any other mask bits. */ > + cpu->lowcore->sw_int_psw.mask = psw.mask; > + cpu->lowcore->sw_int_psw.addr = psw.addr; > cpu->lowcore->sw_int_grs[14] = psw.addr; Not looking at the code (sorry :D ), do we still need this then? (you drop the br bewlo) > cpu->lowcore->sw_int_grs[15] = (uint64_t)cpu->stack + (PAGE_SIZE * 4); > lc->restart_new_psw.mask = 0x0000000180000000UL; > diff --git a/s390x/cstart64.S b/s390x/cstart64.S > index 86dd4c4..e6a6bdb 100644 > --- a/s390x/cstart64.S > +++ b/s390x/cstart64.S > @@ -159,7 +159,7 @@ smp_cpu_setup_state: > xgr %r1, %r1 > lmg %r0, %r15, GEN_LC_SW_INT_GRS > lctlg %c0, %c0, GEN_LC_SW_INT_CRS > - br %r14 > + lpswe GEN_LC_SW_INT_PSW > > pgm_int: > SAVE_REGS >
On 12/11/19 1:31 PM, David Hildenbrand wrote: > On 11.12.19 12:59, Janosch Frank wrote: >> 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 <frankja@linux.ibm.com> >> --- >> lib/s390x/smp.c | 2 ++ >> s390x/cstart64.S | 2 +- >> 2 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) >> >> diff --git a/lib/s390x/smp.c b/lib/s390x/smp.c >> index f57f420..e17751a 100644 >> --- a/lib/s390x/smp.c >> +++ b/lib/s390x/smp.c >> @@ -185,6 +185,8 @@ int smp_cpu_setup(uint16_t addr, struct psw psw) >> cpu->stack = (uint64_t *)alloc_pages(2); >> >> /* Start without DAT and any other mask bits. */ >> + cpu->lowcore->sw_int_psw.mask = psw.mask; >> + cpu->lowcore->sw_int_psw.addr = psw.addr; >> cpu->lowcore->sw_int_grs[14] = psw.addr; > > Not looking at the code (sorry :D ), do we still need this then? (you > drop the br bewlo) r14 is the return address, saving/initialising it doesn't sound like a bad idea to me. If we ever have stack traces, it might show up, or won't it? > >> cpu->lowcore->sw_int_grs[15] = (uint64_t)cpu->stack + (PAGE_SIZE * 4); >> lc->restart_new_psw.mask = 0x0000000180000000UL; >> diff --git a/s390x/cstart64.S b/s390x/cstart64.S >> index 86dd4c4..e6a6bdb 100644 >> --- a/s390x/cstart64.S >> +++ b/s390x/cstart64.S >> @@ -159,7 +159,7 @@ smp_cpu_setup_state: >> xgr %r1, %r1 >> lmg %r0, %r15, GEN_LC_SW_INT_GRS >> lctlg %c0, %c0, GEN_LC_SW_INT_CRS >> - br %r14 >> + lpswe GEN_LC_SW_INT_PSW >> >> pgm_int: >> SAVE_REGS >> > >
On 11.12.19 13:34, Janosch Frank wrote: > On 12/11/19 1:31 PM, David Hildenbrand wrote: >> On 11.12.19 12:59, Janosch Frank wrote: >>> 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 <frankja@linux.ibm.com> >>> --- >>> lib/s390x/smp.c | 2 ++ >>> s390x/cstart64.S | 2 +- >>> 2 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) >>> >>> diff --git a/lib/s390x/smp.c b/lib/s390x/smp.c >>> index f57f420..e17751a 100644 >>> --- a/lib/s390x/smp.c >>> +++ b/lib/s390x/smp.c >>> @@ -185,6 +185,8 @@ int smp_cpu_setup(uint16_t addr, struct psw psw) >>> cpu->stack = (uint64_t *)alloc_pages(2); >>> >>> /* Start without DAT and any other mask bits. */ >>> + cpu->lowcore->sw_int_psw.mask = psw.mask; >>> + cpu->lowcore->sw_int_psw.addr = psw.addr; >>> cpu->lowcore->sw_int_grs[14] = psw.addr; >> >> Not looking at the code (sorry :D ), do we still need this then? (you >> drop the br bewlo) > > r14 is the return address, saving/initialising it doesn't sound like a > bad idea to me. If we ever have stack traces, it might show up, or won't it? > >> >>> cpu->lowcore->sw_int_grs[15] = (uint64_t)cpu->stack + (PAGE_SIZE * 4); >>> lc->restart_new_psw.mask = 0x0000000180000000UL; >>> diff --git a/s390x/cstart64.S b/s390x/cstart64.S >>> index 86dd4c4..e6a6bdb 100644 >>> --- a/s390x/cstart64.S >>> +++ b/s390x/cstart64.S >>> @@ -159,7 +159,7 @@ smp_cpu_setup_state: >>> xgr %r1, %r1 >>> lmg %r0, %r15, GEN_LC_SW_INT_GRS >>> lctlg %c0, %c0, GEN_LC_SW_INT_CRS >>> - br %r14 >>> + lpswe GEN_LC_SW_INT_PSW >>> Makes sense Reviewed-by: David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>
On 11.12.19 12:59, Janosch Frank wrote: > 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 <frankja@linux.ibm.com> > --- > lib/s390x/smp.c | 2 ++ > s390x/cstart64.S | 2 +- > 2 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/lib/s390x/smp.c b/lib/s390x/smp.c > index f57f420..e17751a 100644 > --- a/lib/s390x/smp.c > +++ b/lib/s390x/smp.c > @@ -185,6 +185,8 @@ int smp_cpu_setup(uint16_t addr, struct psw psw) > cpu->stack = (uint64_t *)alloc_pages(2); > > /* Start without DAT and any other mask bits. */ > + cpu->lowcore->sw_int_psw.mask = psw.mask; > + cpu->lowcore->sw_int_psw.addr = psw.addr; > cpu->lowcore->sw_int_grs[14] = psw.addr; > cpu->lowcore->sw_int_grs[15] = (uint64_t)cpu->stack + (PAGE_SIZE * 4); > lc->restart_new_psw.mask = 0x0000000180000000UL; > diff --git a/s390x/cstart64.S b/s390x/cstart64.S > index 86dd4c4..e6a6bdb 100644 > --- a/s390x/cstart64.S > +++ b/s390x/cstart64.S > @@ -159,7 +159,7 @@ smp_cpu_setup_state: > xgr %r1, %r1 > lmg %r0, %r15, GEN_LC_SW_INT_GRS > lctlg %c0, %c0, GEN_LC_SW_INT_CRS > - br %r14 > + lpswe GEN_LC_SW_INT_PSW > > pgm_int: > SAVE_REGS > Queued to https://github.com/davidhildenbrand/kvm-unit-tests.git s390x-next Thanks!
diff --git a/lib/s390x/smp.c b/lib/s390x/smp.c index f57f420..e17751a 100644 --- a/lib/s390x/smp.c +++ b/lib/s390x/smp.c @@ -185,6 +185,8 @@ int smp_cpu_setup(uint16_t addr, struct psw psw) cpu->stack = (uint64_t *)alloc_pages(2); /* Start without DAT and any other mask bits. */ + cpu->lowcore->sw_int_psw.mask = psw.mask; + cpu->lowcore->sw_int_psw.addr = psw.addr; cpu->lowcore->sw_int_grs[14] = psw.addr; cpu->lowcore->sw_int_grs[15] = (uint64_t)cpu->stack + (PAGE_SIZE * 4); lc->restart_new_psw.mask = 0x0000000180000000UL; diff --git a/s390x/cstart64.S b/s390x/cstart64.S index 86dd4c4..e6a6bdb 100644 --- a/s390x/cstart64.S +++ b/s390x/cstart64.S @@ -159,7 +159,7 @@ smp_cpu_setup_state: xgr %r1, %r1 lmg %r0, %r15, GEN_LC_SW_INT_GRS lctlg %c0, %c0, GEN_LC_SW_INT_CRS - br %r14 + lpswe GEN_LC_SW_INT_PSW pgm_int: SAVE_REGS
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 <frankja@linux.ibm.com> --- lib/s390x/smp.c | 2 ++ s390x/cstart64.S | 2 +- 2 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)