> The ap_bus has a function for determining if the ap instructions are
> installed. I think it's basically trial execution.
>
Okay, just like CMM. Bad system design. But it is what it is.
>>
>
> I think it's best modeled with a CPU model feature. In the end
> it's about having or not having ap instructions in the guest, and
> making stable guest ABI is exactly the thing of cpu-models AFAIU.
Indeed, as mentioned in the other mail, the AP feature but then always
has to say "AP instructions available", not just if an AP device has
been defined.
>
>>>
>>> FEAT_INIT("plo-cl", S390_FEAT_TYPE_PLO, 0, "PLO Compare and load (32
>>> bit in general registers)"),
>>> FEAT_INIT("plo-clg", S390_FEAT_TYPE_PLO, 1, "PLO Compare and load (64
>>> bit in parameter list)"),
>>> diff --git a/target/s390x/cpu_features_def.h
>>> b/target/s390x/cpu_features_def.h
>>> index 7c5915c..8998b65 100644
>>> --- a/target/s390x/cpu_features_def.h
>>> +++ b/target/s390x/cpu_features_def.h
>>> @@ -27,8 +27,10 @@ typedef enum {
>>> S390_FEAT_SENSE_RUNNING_STATUS,
>>> S390_FEAT_CONDITIONAL_SSKE,
>>> S390_FEAT_CONFIGURATION_TOPOLOGY,
>>> + S390_FEAT_AP_QUERY_CONFIG_INFO,
>>> S390_FEAT_IPTE_RANGE,
>>> S390_FEAT_NONQ_KEY_SETTING,
>>> + S390_FEAT_AP_FACILITIES_TEST,
>>> S390_FEAT_EXTENDED_TRANSLATION_2,
>>> S390_FEAT_MSA,
>>> S390_FEAT_LONG_DISPLACEMENT,
>>> @@ -118,6 +120,7 @@ typedef enum {
>>> /* Misc */
>>> S390_FEAT_DAT_ENH_2,
>>> S390_FEAT_CMM,
>>> + S390_FEAT_AP,
>>>
>>> /* PLO */
>>> S390_FEAT_PLO_CL,
>>> diff --git a/target/s390x/cpu_models.c b/target/s390x/cpu_models.c
>>> index 1d5f0da..35f91ea 100644
>>> --- a/target/s390x/cpu_models.c
>>> +++ b/target/s390x/cpu_models.c
>>> @@ -770,6 +770,8 @@ static void check_consistency(const S390CPUModel *model)
>>> { S390_FEAT_PRNO_TRNG_QRTCR, S390_FEAT_MSA_EXT_5 },
>>> { S390_FEAT_PRNO_TRNG, S390_FEAT_MSA_EXT_5 },
>>> { S390_FEAT_SIE_KSS, S390_FEAT_SIE_F2 },
>>> + { S390_FEAT_AP_QUERY_CONFIG_INFO, S390_FEAT_AP },
>>> + { S390_FEAT_AP_FACILITIES_TEST, S390_FEAT_AP },
>>> };
>>> int i;
>>>
>>> @@ -900,6 +902,16 @@ void s390_realize_cpu_model(CPUState *cs, Error **errp)
>>> cpu->model->cpu_id_format = max_model->cpu_id_format;
>>> cpu->model->cpu_ver = max_model->cpu_ver;
>>>
>>> + /*
>>> + * If the AP facilities are not installed on the guest, then it makes
>>> + * no sense to enable the QCI or APFT facilities because they are only
>>> + * needed by AP facilities.
>>> + */
>>> + if (!test_bit(S390_FEAT_AP, cpu->model->features)) {
>>> + clear_bit(S390_FEAT_AP_QUERY_CONFIG_INFO, cpu->model->features);
>>> + clear_bit(S390_FEAT_AP_FACILITIES_TEST, cpu->model->features);
>>> + }
>>
>> Please don't silently disable things. Instead
>>
>
> I agree, this has to go (already commented on this).
>
>> a) Add consistency checks (check_consistency())
>
> The consistency checks are already in place. As already stated
> before, one could make it produce an error.
>
>> b) Mask the bits out in the KVM CPU model sensing part
>> (kvm_s390_get_host_cpu_model()) - which you already have :)
>>
>
> Getting no ap but qci and apft indicated by KVM is unlikely to
> happen, ever.
I assume it would happen right now under vSIE (or I missed where we
enable the new ECA bit in the vSIE code). Having such simple masking
operations in the "sensing" part usually doesn't hurt.
We try to produce a consistent model even though the hardware/KVM might
be weird.
>
>>> +
>>> check_consistency(cpu->model);
>>> check_compatibility(max_model, cpu->model, errp);
>>> if (*errp) {
>>> diff --git a/target/s390x/gen-features.c b/target/s390x/gen-features.c
>>> index 0cdbc15..2d01b52 100644
>>> --- a/target/s390x/gen-features.c
>>> +++ b/target/s390x/gen-features.c
>>> @@ -447,6 +447,9 @@ static uint16_t full_GEN12_GA1[] = {
>>> S390_FEAT_ADAPTER_INT_SUPPRESSION,
>>> S390_FEAT_EDAT_2,
>>> S390_FEAT_SIDE_EFFECT_ACCESS_ESOP2,
>>> + S390_FEAT_AP,
>>> + S390_FEAT_AP_QUERY_CONFIG_INFO,
>>> + S390_FEAT_AP_FACILITIES_TEST,
>>> };
>>
>> Please keep the order as defined in target/s390x/cpu_features_def.h
>>
>>>
>>> static uint16_t full_GEN12_GA2[] = {
>>> diff --git a/target/s390x/kvm.c b/target/s390x/kvm.c
>>> index e13c890..ae20ed8 100644
>>> --- a/target/s390x/kvm.c
>>> +++ b/target/s390x/kvm.c
>>> @@ -2105,6 +2105,7 @@ static int kvm_to_feat[][2] = {
>>> { KVM_S390_VM_CPU_FEAT_PFMFI, S390_FEAT_SIE_PFMFI},
>>> { KVM_S390_VM_CPU_FEAT_SIGPIF, S390_FEAT_SIE_SIGPIF},
>>> { KVM_S390_VM_CPU_FEAT_KSS, S390_FEAT_SIE_KSS},
>>> + { KVM_S390_VM_CPU_FEAT_AP, S390_FEAT_AP},
>>
>> Nothing speaks against the STFL bits, want to learn more about the
>> S390_FEAT_AP feature :)
>>
>>
>
> Kernel series wise what you are looking for is
> '[PATCH v2 04/15] KVM: s390: CPU model support for AP virtualization'(MID:
> <1519741693-17440-5-git-send-email-akrow...@linux.vnet.ibm.com>)
> and
> '[PATCH v2 08/15] KVM: s390: interface to enable AP execution mode' (MID:
> <1519741693-17440-9-git-send-email-akrow...@linux.vnet.ibm.com>)
>
Found it, thanks for the pointer!
> Happy reviewing!
>
> Regards,
> Halil
>
>
>
--
Thanks,
David / dhildenb
