On 26.03.2018 10:32, David Hildenbrand wrote: > On 16.03.2018 00:24, Tony Krowiak wrote: >> If the CPU model indicates that AP facility is installed on >> the guest (i.e., -cpu xxxx,ap=on), then the expectation is that >> the AP bus running in the guest will initialize; however, if the >> AP instructions are not being interpreted by the firmware, then >> they will be intercepted and routed back to QEMU for handling. >> If a handler is not defined to process the intercepted instruciton, >> then an operation exception will be injected into the >> guest, in which case the AP bus will not initialize. >> >> There are two situations where AP instructions will not be >> interpreted: >> >> 1. The guest is not configured with a vfio-ap device (i.e., >> -device vfio-ap,sysfsdev=$path-to-mdev). The realize function for >> the vfio-ap device enables interpretive execution of AP >> instructions. >> >> 2. The guest is a second level guest but the first level guest has >> not enabled interpretive execution. >> >> This patch introduces AP instruction handlers to ensure the AP bus >> module initializes on the guest when the AP facility is installed >> on the guest but AP instructions are not being interpreted. The logic >> incorporated is: >> >> * If the CPU model indicates AP instructions are >> installed >> >> * Set the status response code for the instruction to indicate that >> the APQN contained in the instruction is not valid. This is >> a valid response because there will be no devices configured for >> the guest in any of the above scenarios. >> >> * Else return an error from the handler. This will result in an >> operation being injected into the guest and the AP bus will not > > s/operation/operation exception/ > >> initialize on the guest. That is commensurate with how things work >> today. >> >> Signed-off-by: Tony Krowiak <akrow...@linux.vnet.ibm.com> >> --- >> hw/vfio/ap.c | 45 >> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >> include/hw/s390x/ap-device.h | 6 +++++ >> target/s390x/kvm.c | 14 +++++++++++++ >> 3 files changed, 65 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/hw/vfio/ap.c b/hw/vfio/ap.c >> index b397bb1..88e744d 100644 >> --- a/hw/vfio/ap.c >> +++ b/hw/vfio/ap.c >> @@ -148,6 +148,51 @@ static void vfio_ap_unrealize(DeviceState *dev, Error >> **errp) >> kvm_s390_set_interpret_ap(0); >> } >> > > I think you are missing cpu_synchronize_state(CPU(cpu)) in all of these > functions. >
No you don't. There is just a duplicate cpu_synchronize_state(CPU(cpu)) in kvm_sclp_service_call() which confused me. -- Thanks, David / dhildenb
