[lkml]   [2018]   [Apr]   [2]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH v3 04/14] KVM: s390: device attribute to set AP interpretive execution
On 03/20/2018 06:48 PM, Halil Pasic wrote:
> On 03/20/2018 06:58 PM, Tony Krowiak wrote:
>> I spoke with Christian this morning and he made a suggestion which I think would provide the best solution here.
>> This is my proposal:
>> 1. Get rid of the KVM_S390_VM_CRYPTO_INTERPRET_AP device attribute and return to setting ECA.28 from the
>> mdev device open callback.
>> 2. Since there may be vcpus online at the time the mdev device open is called, we must first take all running vcpus out of
>> SIE and block them. Christian suggested the kvm_s390_vcpu_block_all(struct kvm *kvm) function will do the trick. So I
>> propose introducing a function like the following to be called during mdev open:
> There is one thing you missed, otherwise I'm *very* satisfied with this
> proposal.
> What you have missed IMHO is vcpu hottplug. So IMHO you should keep
> kvm->arch.crypto.apie, and update it accordingly ...
I agree, I will fix it.
>> int kvm_ap_set_interpretive_exec(struct kvm *kvm, bool enable)
>> {
>> int i;
>> struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu;
>> if (!test_kvm_cpu_feat(kvm, KVM_S390_VM_CPU_FEAT_AP))
>> return -EOPNOTSUPP;
>> mutex_lock(&kvm->lock);
>> kvm_s390_vcpu_block_all(kvm);
> ... let's say here.
>> kvm_for_each_vcpu(i, vcpu, kvm) {
> And here you can call kvm_s390_vcpu_crypto_setup(vcpu) (the changes to
> this function will be required for hotplug) if you like
Sounds good to me.
>> if (enable)
>> vcpu->arch.sie_block->eca |= ECA_APIE;
>> else
>> vcpu->arch.sie_block->eca &= ~ECA_APIE;
> or keep this stuff, it does not really matter to me.
I'll call the kvm_s390_vcpu_crypto_setup(vcpu) to set ECA_APIE.
>> }
>> kvm_s390_vcpu_unblock_all(kvm);
>> mutex_unlock(&kvm->lock);
>> return 0;
>> }
>> This interface allows us to set ECA.28 even if vcpus are running
> I tend to agree. I will give it a proper review when this gets more
> formal (e.g. v4 (preferably) or patches to be fixed up to this series).
> Please don't forget to revisit the discussion on kvm_s390_vm_set_crypto:
> if the mechanism there isn't right for ECA.28 I think you should tell
> us why it's OK for the other attributes if it's OK. If it is not then
> I guess you will want to do a stand alone patch for that.
That will no longer be a part of this patch series. We can revisit that as
a separate issue at a future time.

 \ /
  Last update: 2018-04-02 20:57    [W:0.099 / U:2.032 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site