[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <27c5a295-8bb0-f6b2-bafe-9900e28403a7@linux.ibm.com>
Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2022 14:39:57 +0100
From: Pierre Morel <pmorel@...ux.ibm.com>
To: Matthew Rosato <mjrosato@...ux.ibm.com>, linux-s390@...r.kernel.org
Cc: alex.williamson@...hat.com, cohuck@...hat.com,
schnelle@...ux.ibm.com, farman@...ux.ibm.com,
borntraeger@...ux.ibm.com, hca@...ux.ibm.com, gor@...ux.ibm.com,
gerald.schaefer@...ux.ibm.com, agordeev@...ux.ibm.com,
frankja@...ux.ibm.com, david@...hat.com, imbrenda@...ux.ibm.com,
vneethv@...ux.ibm.com, oberpar@...ux.ibm.com, freude@...ux.ibm.com,
thuth@...hat.com, pasic@...ux.ibm.com, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 29/30] KVM: s390: introduce CPU feature for zPCI
Interpretation
On 1/14/22 21:31, Matthew Rosato wrote:
> KVM_S390_VM_CPU_FEAT_ZPCI_INTERP relays whether zPCI interpretive
> execution is possible based on the available hardware facilities.
>
> Signed-off-by: Matthew Rosato <mjrosato@...ux.ibm.com>
> ---
> arch/s390/include/uapi/asm/kvm.h | 1 +
> arch/s390/kvm/kvm-s390.c | 4 ++++
> 2 files changed, 5 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/arch/s390/include/uapi/asm/kvm.h b/arch/s390/include/uapi/asm/kvm.h
> index 7a6b14874d65..ed06458a871f 100644
> --- a/arch/s390/include/uapi/asm/kvm.h
> +++ b/arch/s390/include/uapi/asm/kvm.h
> @@ -130,6 +130,7 @@ struct kvm_s390_vm_cpu_machine {
> #define KVM_S390_VM_CPU_FEAT_PFMFI 11
> #define KVM_S390_VM_CPU_FEAT_SIGPIF 12
> #define KVM_S390_VM_CPU_FEAT_KSS 13
> +#define KVM_S390_VM_CPU_FEAT_ZPCI_INTERP 14
> struct kvm_s390_vm_cpu_feat {
> __u64 feat[16];
> };
> diff --git a/arch/s390/kvm/kvm-s390.c b/arch/s390/kvm/kvm-s390.c
> index b6c32fc3b272..3ed59fe512dd 100644
> --- a/arch/s390/kvm/kvm-s390.c
> +++ b/arch/s390/kvm/kvm-s390.c
> @@ -434,6 +434,10 @@ static void kvm_s390_cpu_feat_init(void)
> if (test_facility(151)) /* DFLTCC */
> __insn32_query(INSN_DFLTCC, kvm_s390_available_subfunc.dfltcc);
>
> + if (test_facility(69) && test_facility(70) && test_facility(71) &&
> + test_facility(72)) /* zPCI Interpretation */
> + allow_cpu_feat(KVM_S390_VM_CPU_FEAT_ZPCI_INTERP);
> +
Don't we want to start the support of ZPCI interpretation starting with
Z14 ?
> if (MACHINE_HAS_ESOP)
> allow_cpu_feat(KVM_S390_VM_CPU_FEAT_ESOP);
> /*
>
--
Pierre Morel
IBM Lab Boeblingen
Powered by blists - more mailing lists