Re: [PATCH v9 21/22] KVM: s390: CPU model support for AP virtualization

[David Hildenbrand]

On 23.08.2018 19:35, Tony Krowiak wrote:
> On 08/23/2018 10:59 AM, Pierre Morel wrote:
>> On 23/08/2018 15:38, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>>> On 23.08.2018 15:22, Halil Pasic wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 08/23/2018 02:47 PM, Pierre Morel wrote:
>>>>> On 23/08/2018 13:12, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>>>> [..]
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I'm confused, which 128 bit?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Me too :) , I was assuming this block to be 128bit, but the qci 
>>>>>>>> block
>>>>>>>> has 128 bytes....
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> And looking at arch/s390/include/asm/ap.h, there is a lot of 
>>>>>>>> information
>>>>>>>> contained that is definitely not of interest for CPU models...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I wonder if there is somewhere defined which bits are reserved for
>>>>>>>> future features/facilities, compared to ap masks and such.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> This is really hard to understand/plan without access to 
>>>>>>>> documentation.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You (Halil, Tony, Pier, ...) should have a look if what I described
>>>>>>>> related to PQAP(QCI) containing features that should get part of 
>>>>>>>> the CPU
>>>>>>>> model makes sense or not. For now I was thinking that there is 
>>>>>>>> some part
>>>>>>>> inside of QCI that is strictly reserved for facilities/features 
>>>>>>>> that we
>>>>>>>> can use.
>>>>
>>>> No there is no such part. The architecture documentation is quite 
>>>> confusing
>>>> with some aspects (e.g. persistence) of how exactly some of these 
>>>> features
>>>> work and are indicated. I'm having a hard time finding my opinion. I 
>>>> may
>>>> end up asking some questions later, but for now i have to think first.
>>>>
>>>> Just one hint. There is a programming note stating that if bit 2 of the
>>>> QCI block is one there is at least one AP card in the machine that 
>>>> actually
>>>> has APXA installed.
>>>>
>>>> I read the architecture so that the APXA has a 'cpu part' (if we are
>>>> doing APXA the cpu can't spec exception on certain bits not being zor9)
>>>> and a 'card(s) part'.
>>>>
>>>> Since the stuff seems quite difficult to sort out properly, I ask 
>>>> myself
>>>> are there real problems we must solve?
>>>>
>>>> This ultimately seems to be  about the migration, right? You say 
>>>> 'This helps
>>>> to catch nasty migration bugs (e.g. APXA suddenly disappearing).' at 
>>>> the very
>>>> beginning of the discussion. Yes, we don't have to have an vfio_ap 
>>>> device,
>>>> he guest can and will start looking for AP resources if
>>>> only the cpu model features installed. So the guest could observe
>>>> a disappearing APXA, but I don't think that would lead to problems 
>>>> (with
>>>> Linux at least).
>>>>
>>>> And there ain't much AP a guest can sanely do without if no AP 
>>>> resources
>>>> are there.
>>>>
>>>> I would really prefer not rushing a solution if we don't have to.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What is apsc, qact, rc8a in the qci blocks? are the facility bits?
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes, facility bits concerning the AP instructions
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> According to the current AR document rc8a ain't a facility but bits
>>>> 0-2 and 4-7 kind of are.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Easy ( :) ) answer. Everything that is the CPU part should get into the
>>> CPU model. Everything that is AP specific not. If APXA is not a CPU
>>> facility, fine with me to leave it out.
>>>
>>> Ack to not rushing, but also ack to not leaving out important things.
>>> Ack that this stuff is hard to ficure out.
>>
>> APXA is not a CPU part, it is a machine part (SIE) and a AP part 
>> (QCI,TAPQ),
>> it has no influence on CPU instructions but on the AP instructions.
>> Consequently, if I understood the definition correctly, it should not 
>> go in the CPU model.
> 
> The APXA bit returned via the PQAP(QCI) instruction indicates the APXA 
> facility is
> installed in the CPUs of the configuration. This means that the facility is
> installed in one or more adjunct processors but not necessarily all. 
> Given that
> it indicates a CPU property, maybe it does belong in the CPU model?
> 

Hmmm, I tend to agree - especially as it affects SIE behavior. But as
this is not a feature block (compared to what I thought), this clould be
model as a CPU feature like AP.

What about the other facilities? Do they smell more like AP card
specific stuff?

-- 

Thanks,

David / dhildenb