1. Patchew
  2. QEMU
  3. [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v4 0/9] s390x: zPCI detangling
  4. View patch

[Qemu-devel] [PATCH v4 7/9] s390x/pci: fence off instructions for non-pci

Cornelia Huck posted 9 patches 8 years, 6 months ago
[Qemu-devel] [PATCH v4 7/9] s390x/pci: fence off instructions for non-pci
Posted by Cornelia Huck 8 years, 6 months ago 
If a guest running on a machine without zpci issues a pci instruction,
throw them an exception.

Reviewed-by: Thomas Huth <thuth@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: Cornelia Huck <cohuck@redhat.com>
---
 target/s390x/kvm.c | 54 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-------------
 1 file changed, 41 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-)

diff --git a/target/s390x/kvm.c b/target/s390x/kvm.c
index bc62bba5b7..9de165d8b1 100644
--- a/target/s390x/kvm.c
+++ b/target/s390x/kvm.c
@@ -1191,7 +1191,11 @@ static int kvm_clp_service_call(S390CPU *cpu, struct kvm_run *run)
 {
     uint8_t r2 = (run->s390_sieic.ipb & 0x000f0000) >> 16;
 
-    return clp_service_call(cpu, r2);
+    if (s390_has_feat(S390_FEAT_ZPCI)) {
+        return clp_service_call(cpu, r2);
+    } else {
+        return -1;
+    }
 }
 
 static int kvm_pcilg_service_call(S390CPU *cpu, struct kvm_run *run)
@@ -1199,7 +1203,11 @@ static int kvm_pcilg_service_call(S390CPU *cpu, struct kvm_run *run)
     uint8_t r1 = (run->s390_sieic.ipb & 0x00f00000) >> 20;
     uint8_t r2 = (run->s390_sieic.ipb & 0x000f0000) >> 16;
 
-    return pcilg_service_call(cpu, r1, r2);
+    if (s390_has_feat(S390_FEAT_ZPCI)) {
+        return pcilg_service_call(cpu, r1, r2);
+    } else {
+        return -1;
+    }
 }
 
 static int kvm_pcistg_service_call(S390CPU *cpu, struct kvm_run *run)
@@ -1207,7 +1215,11 @@ static int kvm_pcistg_service_call(S390CPU *cpu, struct kvm_run *run)
     uint8_t r1 = (run->s390_sieic.ipb & 0x00f00000) >> 20;
     uint8_t r2 = (run->s390_sieic.ipb & 0x000f0000) >> 16;
 
-    return pcistg_service_call(cpu, r1, r2);
+    if (s390_has_feat(S390_FEAT_ZPCI)) {
+        return pcistg_service_call(cpu, r1, r2);
+    } else {
+        return -1;
+    }
 }
 
 static int kvm_stpcifc_service_call(S390CPU *cpu, struct kvm_run *run)
@@ -1216,10 +1228,14 @@ static int kvm_stpcifc_service_call(S390CPU *cpu, struct kvm_run *run)
     uint64_t fiba;
     uint8_t ar;
 
-    cpu_synchronize_state(CPU(cpu));
-    fiba = get_base_disp_rxy(cpu, run, &ar);
+    if (s390_has_feat(S390_FEAT_ZPCI)) {
+        cpu_synchronize_state(CPU(cpu));
+        fiba = get_base_disp_rxy(cpu, run, &ar);
 
-    return stpcifc_service_call(cpu, r1, fiba, ar);
+        return stpcifc_service_call(cpu, r1, fiba, ar);
+    } else {
+        return -1;
+    }
 }
 
 static int kvm_sic_service_call(S390CPU *cpu, struct kvm_run *run)
@@ -1247,7 +1263,11 @@ static int kvm_rpcit_service_call(S390CPU *cpu, struct kvm_run *run)
     uint8_t r1 = (run->s390_sieic.ipb & 0x00f00000) >> 20;
     uint8_t r2 = (run->s390_sieic.ipb & 0x000f0000) >> 16;
 
-    return rpcit_service_call(cpu, r1, r2);
+    if (s390_has_feat(S390_FEAT_ZPCI)) {
+        return rpcit_service_call(cpu, r1, r2);
+    } else {
+        return -1;
+    }
 }
 
 static int kvm_pcistb_service_call(S390CPU *cpu, struct kvm_run *run)
@@ -1257,10 +1277,14 @@ static int kvm_pcistb_service_call(S390CPU *cpu, struct kvm_run *run)
     uint64_t gaddr;
     uint8_t ar;
 
-    cpu_synchronize_state(CPU(cpu));
-    gaddr = get_base_disp_rsy(cpu, run, &ar);
+    if (s390_has_feat(S390_FEAT_ZPCI)) {
+        cpu_synchronize_state(CPU(cpu));
+        gaddr = get_base_disp_rsy(cpu, run, &ar);
 
-    return pcistb_service_call(cpu, r1, r3, gaddr, ar);
+        return pcistb_service_call(cpu, r1, r3, gaddr, ar);
+    } else {
+        return -1;
+    }
 }
 
 static int kvm_mpcifc_service_call(S390CPU *cpu, struct kvm_run *run)
@@ -1269,10 +1293,14 @@ static int kvm_mpcifc_service_call(S390CPU *cpu, struct kvm_run *run)
     uint64_t fiba;
     uint8_t ar;
 
-    cpu_synchronize_state(CPU(cpu));
-    fiba = get_base_disp_rxy(cpu, run, &ar);
+    if (s390_has_feat(S390_FEAT_ZPCI)) {
+        cpu_synchronize_state(CPU(cpu));
+        fiba = get_base_disp_rxy(cpu, run, &ar);
 
-    return mpcifc_service_call(cpu, r1, fiba, ar);
+        return mpcifc_service_call(cpu, r1, fiba, ar);
+    } else {
+        return -1;
+    }
 }
 
 static int handle_b9(S390CPU *cpu, struct kvm_run *run, uint8_t ipa1)
-- 
2.13.3
Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v4 7/9] s390x/pci: fence off instructions for non-pci
Posted by David Hildenbrand 8 years, 6 months ago 
On 04.08.2017 13:29, Cornelia Huck wrote:
> If a guest running on a machine without zpci issues a pci instruction,
> throw them an exception.
> 
> Reviewed-by: Thomas Huth <thuth@redhat.com>
> Signed-off-by: Cornelia Huck <cohuck@redhat.com>
> ---
>  target/s390x/kvm.c | 54 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-------------
>  1 file changed, 41 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/target/s390x/kvm.c b/target/s390x/kvm.c
> index bc62bba5b7..9de165d8b1 100644
> --- a/target/s390x/kvm.c
> +++ b/target/s390x/kvm.c
> @@ -1191,7 +1191,11 @@ static int kvm_clp_service_call(S390CPU *cpu, struct kvm_run *run)
>  {
>      uint8_t r2 = (run->s390_sieic.ipb & 0x000f0000) >> 16;
>  
> -    return clp_service_call(cpu, r2);
> +    if (s390_has_feat(S390_FEAT_ZPCI)) {
> +        return clp_service_call(cpu, r2);
> +    } else {
> +        return -1;
> +    }

I am a fan of dropping these else case and returning directly. But that
is just my opinion.

(applies to all changes in this patch)


-- 

Thanks,

David
Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v4 7/9] s390x/pci: fence off instructions for non-pci
Posted by Cornelia Huck 8 years, 6 months ago 
On Fri, 4 Aug 2017 15:17:25 +0200
David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com> wrote:

> On 04.08.2017 13:29, Cornelia Huck wrote:
> > If a guest running on a machine without zpci issues a pci instruction,
> > throw them an exception.
> > 
> > Reviewed-by: Thomas Huth <thuth@redhat.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Cornelia Huck <cohuck@redhat.com>
> > ---
> >  target/s390x/kvm.c | 54 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-------------
> >  1 file changed, 41 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/target/s390x/kvm.c b/target/s390x/kvm.c
> > index bc62bba5b7..9de165d8b1 100644
> > --- a/target/s390x/kvm.c
> > +++ b/target/s390x/kvm.c
> > @@ -1191,7 +1191,11 @@ static int kvm_clp_service_call(S390CPU *cpu, struct kvm_run *run)
> >  {
> >      uint8_t r2 = (run->s390_sieic.ipb & 0x000f0000) >> 16;
> >  
> > -    return clp_service_call(cpu, r2);
> > +    if (s390_has_feat(S390_FEAT_ZPCI)) {
> > +        return clp_service_call(cpu, r2);
> > +    } else {
> > +        return -1;
> > +    }  
> 
> I am a fan of dropping these else case and returning directly. But that
> is just my opinion.
> 
> (applies to all changes in this patch)
> 
> 

You are not the first to say that :)

I do prefer this way around, though, and if there aren't strong
objections, I'll keep it like this.
Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v4 7/9] s390x/pci: fence off instructions for non-pci
Posted by David Hildenbrand 8 years, 6 months ago 
On 07.08.2017 11:52, Cornelia Huck wrote:
> On Fri, 4 Aug 2017 15:17:25 +0200
> David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com> wrote:
> 
>> On 04.08.2017 13:29, Cornelia Huck wrote:
>>> If a guest running on a machine without zpci issues a pci instruction,
>>> throw them an exception.
>>>
>>> Reviewed-by: Thomas Huth <thuth@redhat.com>
>>> Signed-off-by: Cornelia Huck <cohuck@redhat.com>
>>> ---
>>>  target/s390x/kvm.c | 54 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-------------
>>>  1 file changed, 41 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/target/s390x/kvm.c b/target/s390x/kvm.c
>>> index bc62bba5b7..9de165d8b1 100644
>>> --- a/target/s390x/kvm.c
>>> +++ b/target/s390x/kvm.c
>>> @@ -1191,7 +1191,11 @@ static int kvm_clp_service_call(S390CPU *cpu, struct kvm_run *run)
>>>  {
>>>      uint8_t r2 = (run->s390_sieic.ipb & 0x000f0000) >> 16;
>>>  
>>> -    return clp_service_call(cpu, r2);
>>> +    if (s390_has_feat(S390_FEAT_ZPCI)) {
>>> +        return clp_service_call(cpu, r2);
>>> +    } else {
>>> +        return -1;
>>> +    }  
>>
>> I am a fan of dropping these else case and returning directly. But that
>> is just my opinion.
>>
>> (applies to all changes in this patch)
>>
>>
> 
> You are not the first to say that :)

so ... at least 2 vs. 1? ;)

Nevermind, doesn't really matter.

> 
> I do prefer this way around, though, and if there aren't strong
> objections, I'll keep it like this.
> 


-- 

Thanks,

David

Patchew 2.1-devel-b67e4c2

© 2016 - 2026 Red Hat, Inc.