[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <2a389a01-627f-e412-c315-879fbb45f7a1@redhat.com>
Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2018 09:15:31 +0200
From: David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>
To: Tony Krowiak <akrowiak@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
linux-s390@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
kvm@...r.kernel.org
Cc: freude@...ibm.com, schwidefsky@...ibm.com,
heiko.carstens@...ibm.com, borntraeger@...ibm.com,
cohuck@...hat.com, kwankhede@...dia.com,
bjsdjshi@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, pbonzini@...hat.com,
alex.williamson@...hat.com, pmorel@...ux.vnet.ibm.com,
alifm@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, mjrosato@...ux.vnet.ibm.com,
jjherne@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, thuth@...hat.com,
pasic@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, berrange@...hat.com,
fiuczy@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, buendgen@...ibm.com,
frankja@...ux.ibm.com, Tony Krowiak <akrowiak@...ux.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v11 25/26] KVM: s390: CPU model support for AP
virtualization
On 26/09/2018 01:16, Tony Krowiak wrote:
> From: Tony Krowiak <akrowiak@...ux.ibm.com>
>
> Introduces two new CPU model facilities to support
> AP virtualization for KVM guests:
>
> 1. AP Query Configuration Information (QCI) facility is installed.
>
> This is indicated by setting facilities bit 12 for
> the guest. The kernel will not enable this facility
> for the guest if it is not set on the host.
>
> If this facility is not set for the KVM guest, then only
> APQNs with an APQI less than 16 will be used by a Linux
> guest regardless of the matrix configuration for the virtual
> machine. This is a limitation of the Linux AP bus.
>
> 2. AP Facilities Test facility (APFT) is installed.
>
> This is indicated by setting facilities bit 15 for
> the guest. The kernel will not enable this facility for
> the guest if it is not set on the host.
>
> If this facility is not set for the KVM guest, then no
> AP devices will be available to the guest regardless of
> the guest's matrix configuration for the virtual
> machine. This is a limitation of the Linux AP bus.
>
> Signed-off-by: Tony Krowiak <akrowiak@...ux.ibm.com>
> Reviewed-by: Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@...ibm.com>
> Reviewed-by: Halil Pasic <pasic@...ux.ibm.com>
> Reviewed-by: David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>
> Tested-by: Michael Mueller <mimu@...ux.ibm.com>
> Tested-by: Farhan Ali <alifm@...ux.ibm.com>
> ---
> arch/s390/kvm/kvm-s390.c | 1 +
> arch/s390/tools/gen_facilities.c | 2 ++
> 2 files changed, 3 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/arch/s390/kvm/kvm-s390.c b/arch/s390/kvm/kvm-s390.c
> index 81fd82f7626d..444965e78010 100644
> --- a/arch/s390/kvm/kvm-s390.c
> +++ b/arch/s390/kvm/kvm-s390.c
> @@ -371,6 +371,7 @@ static void kvm_s390_cpu_feat_init(void)
>
> if (MACHINE_HAS_ESOP)
> allow_cpu_feat(KVM_S390_VM_CPU_FEAT_ESOP);
> +
This unrelated change should be dropped.
(can maybe be fixed when applying)
Apart from that looks good!
--
Thanks,
David / dhildenb
Powered by blists - more mailing lists