| Message ID | 66c0a6dc-3106-8c84-320b-2b07e81b6caa@redhat.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New, archived |
| Headers | show |
On 03/06/2018 02:01 PM, David Hildenbrand wrote: > On 06.03.2018 12:53, Christian Borntraeger wrote: >> >> >> On 03/06/2018 12:38 PM, Christian Borntraeger wrote: >>> On 03/06/2018 12:32 PM, Christian Borntraeger wrote: >>>> David, >>>> >>>> this seems to have broken VSIE für guests with >64vcpus as we only pin >>>> the first page of the SCA. Starting guest3 with 240 vcpu triggers >>>> quickly guest2 crashes. Can you have a look? >>>> >>> >>> Hmm, or maybe it was always broken and we never supported pinning of >>> ESCA properly? >> >> 4.15.0 is also broken, must be an earlier change. >> > > Maybe something as simple as this: > > diff --git a/arch/s390/kvm/kvm-s390.c b/arch/s390/kvm/kvm-s390.c > index 77d7818130db..321bfbc67d3d 100644 > --- a/arch/s390/kvm/kvm-s390.c > +++ b/arch/s390/kvm/kvm-s390.c > @@ -2146,6 +2146,7 @@ static void sca_add_vcpu(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu) > /* we still need the basic sca for the ipte control */ > vcpu->arch.sie_block->scaoh = (__u32)(((__u64)sca) >> 32); > vcpu->arch.sie_block->scaol = (__u32)(__u64)sca; > + return; > } > read_lock(&vcpu->kvm->arch.sca_lock); > if (vcpu->kvm->arch.use_esca) { > > Tested-by: Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@de.ibm.com> can you spin a patch with proper Fixes tags?
On 06.03.2018 14:14, Christian Borntraeger wrote: > > > On 03/06/2018 02:01 PM, David Hildenbrand wrote: >> On 06.03.2018 12:53, Christian Borntraeger wrote: >>> >>> >>> On 03/06/2018 12:38 PM, Christian Borntraeger wrote: >>>> On 03/06/2018 12:32 PM, Christian Borntraeger wrote: >>>>> David, >>>>> >>>>> this seems to have broken VSIE für guests with >64vcpus as we only pin >>>>> the first page of the SCA. Starting guest3 with 240 vcpu triggers >>>>> quickly guest2 crashes. Can you have a look? >>>>> >>>> >>>> Hmm, or maybe it was always broken and we never supported pinning of >>>> ESCA properly? >>> >>> 4.15.0 is also broken, must be an earlier change. >>> >> >> Maybe something as simple as this: >> >> diff --git a/arch/s390/kvm/kvm-s390.c b/arch/s390/kvm/kvm-s390.c >> index 77d7818130db..321bfbc67d3d 100644 >> --- a/arch/s390/kvm/kvm-s390.c >> +++ b/arch/s390/kvm/kvm-s390.c >> @@ -2146,6 +2146,7 @@ static void sca_add_vcpu(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu) >> /* we still need the basic sca for the ipte control */ >> vcpu->arch.sie_block->scaoh = (__u32)(((__u64)sca) >> 32); >> vcpu->arch.sie_block->scaol = (__u32)(__u64)sca; >> + return; >> } >> read_lock(&vcpu->kvm->arch.sca_lock); >> if (vcpu->kvm->arch.use_esca) { >> >> > > > Tested-by: Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@de.ibm.com> > > can you spin a patch with proper Fixes tags? > Sure, thanks for reporting!
diff --git a/arch/s390/kvm/kvm-s390.c b/arch/s390/kvm/kvm-s390.c index 77d7818130db..321bfbc67d3d 100644 --- a/arch/s390/kvm/kvm-s390.c +++ b/arch/s390/kvm/kvm-s390.c @@ -2146,6 +2146,7 @@ static void sca_add_vcpu(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu) /* we still need the basic sca for the ipte control */ vcpu->arch.sie_block->scaoh = (__u32)(((__u64)sca) >> 32); vcpu->arch.sie_block->scaol = (__u32)(__u64)sca; + return; } read_lock(&vcpu->kvm->arch.sca_lock); if (vcpu->kvm->arch.use_esca) {