Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Subject: Re: [PATCH] KVM: s390: Enable specification exception interpretation
To:     Janis Schoetterl-Glausch <scgl@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@de.ibm.com>,
        Cornelia Huck <cohuck@redhat.com>,
        Janis Schoetterl-Glausch <scgl@linux.ibm.com>,
        Janosch Frank <frankja@linux.ibm.com>,
        Heiko Carstens <hca@linux.ibm.com>,
        Vasily Gorbik <gor@linux.ibm.com>
Cc:     Claudio Imbrenda <imbrenda@linux.ibm.com>,
        "open list:KERNEL VIRTUAL MACHINE for s390 (KVM/s390)" 
        <kvm@vger.kernel.org>,
        "open list:S390" <linux-s390@vger.kernel.org>,
        open list <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
References: <20210706114714.3936825-1-scgl@linux.ibm.com>
 <87k0m3hd7h.fsf@redhat.com> <194128c1-8886-5b8b-2249-5ec58b8e7adb@de.ibm.com>
 <be78ce5d-92e4-36bd-aa28-e32db0342a44@redhat.com>
 <45690e80-5c7c-1e11-99d5-c0d1482755ad@de.ibm.com>
 <c7d61761-3426-6e44-99a8-7aa9e1cad5b6@redhat.com>
 <8318ce18-65ea-8b4d-4df1-9f9ba79f2bb7@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
From:   David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>
Organization: Red Hat
Message-ID: <ba9069e5-04ed-4172-71fd-c029ba7f9f63@redhat.com>
Date:   Wed, 7 Jul 2021 09:26:56 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/78.11.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <8318ce18-65ea-8b4d-4df1-9f9ba79f2bb7@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Precedence: bulk

On 06.07.21 17:27, Janis Schoetterl-Glausch wrote:
> On 7/6/21 5:16 PM, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>> On 06.07.21 14:02, Christian Borntraeger wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On 06.07.21 13:59, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>>>> On 06.07.21 13:56, Christian Borntraeger wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 06.07.21 13:52, Cornelia Huck wrote:
>>>>>> On Tue, Jul 06 2021, Janis Schoetterl-Glausch <scgl@linux.ibm.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> When this feature is enabled the hardware is free to interpret
>>>>>>> specification exceptions generated by the guest, instead of causing
>>>>>>> program interruption interceptions.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This benefits (test) programs that generate a lot of specification
>>>>>>> exceptions (roughly 4x increase in exceptions/sec).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Interceptions will occur as before if ICTL_PINT is set,
>>>>>>> i.e. if guest debug is enabled.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Janis Schoetterl-Glausch <scgl@linux.ibm.com>
>>>>>>> ---
>>>>>>> I'll additionally send kvm-unit-tests for testing this feature.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>      arch/s390/include/asm/kvm_host.h | 1 +
>>>>>>>      arch/s390/kvm/kvm-s390.c         | 2 ++
>>>>>>>      arch/s390/kvm/vsie.c             | 2 ++
>>>>>>>      3 files changed, 5 insertions(+)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> (...)
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> diff --git a/arch/s390/kvm/kvm-s390.c b/arch/s390/kvm/kvm-s390.c
>>>>>>> index b655a7d82bf0..aadd589a3755 100644
>>>>>>> --- a/arch/s390/kvm/kvm-s390.c
>>>>>>> +++ b/arch/s390/kvm/kvm-s390.c
>>>>>>> @@ -3200,6 +3200,8 @@ static int kvm_s390_vcpu_setup(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
>>>>>>>              vcpu->arch.sie_block->ecb |= ECB_SRSI;
>>>>>>>          if (test_kvm_facility(vcpu->kvm, 73))
>>>>>>>              vcpu->arch.sie_block->ecb |= ECB_TE;
>>>>>>> +    if (!kvm_is_ucontrol(vcpu->kvm))
>>>>>>> +        vcpu->arch.sie_block->ecb |= ECB_SPECI;
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Does this exist for any hardware version (i.e. not guarded by a cpu
>>>>>> feature?)
>>>>>
>>>>> Not for all hardware versions, but also no indication. The architecture
>>>>> says that the HW is free to do this or not. (which makes the vsie code
>>>>> simpler).
>>>>
>>>> I remember the architecture said at some point to never set undefined bits - and this bit is undefined on older HW generations. I might be wrong, though.
>>>
>>> I can confirm that this bit will be ignored on older machines. The notion of
>>> never setting undefined bits comes from "you never know what this bit will
>>> change in future machines". Now we know :-)
>>
>> Well, okay then :)
>>
>> So the plan for vSIE is to always keep it disabled? IIUC, one could similarly always forward the bit of set.
> 
> The bit does get copied for vSIE.

... and I missed that hunk :)

LGTM then

Reviewed-by: David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>


-- 
Thanks,

David / dhildenb