On Fri, Apr 12, 2019 at 07:36:03PM +1000, Nicholas Piggin wrote: > These implementations have a few deficiencies that are noted, but are > good enough for Linux to use. > > Signed-off-by: Nicholas Piggin <npig...@gmail.com> > --- > > Cleaned up checkpatch warnings, sorry I didn't realise that exists. > > hw/ppc/spapr_hcall.c | 88 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > 1 file changed, 88 insertions(+) > > diff --git a/hw/ppc/spapr_hcall.c b/hw/ppc/spapr_hcall.c > index 8a736797b9..e985bb694d 100644 > --- a/hw/ppc/spapr_hcall.c > +++ b/hw/ppc/spapr_hcall.c > @@ -1065,6 +1065,90 @@ static target_ulong h_cede(PowerPCCPU *cpu, > SpaprMachineState *spapr, > return H_SUCCESS; > } > > +static target_ulong h_join(PowerPCCPU *cpu, SpaprMachineState *spapr, > + target_ulong opcode, target_ulong *args) > +{ > + CPUPPCState *env = &cpu->env; > + CPUState *cs = CPU(cpu); > + > + if (env->msr & (1ULL << MSR_EE)) { > + return H_BAD_MODE; > + } > + > + /* > + * This should check for single-threaded mode. In practice, Linux > + * does not try to H_JOIN all CPUs. > + */ > + > + cs->halted = 1; > + cs->exception_index = EXCP_HALTED; > + cs->exit_request = 1; > + > + return H_SUCCESS; > +} > + > +static target_ulong h_confer(PowerPCCPU *cpu, SpaprMachineState *spapr, > + target_ulong opcode, target_ulong *args) > +{ > + target_long target = args[0]; > + CPUState *cs = CPU(cpu); > + > + /* > + * This does not do a targeted yield or confer, but check the parameter > + * anyway. -1 means confer to all/any other CPUs. > + */ > + if (target != -1 && !CPU(spapr_find_cpu(target))) { > + return H_PARAMETER; > + } > + > + /* > + * H_CONFER with target == this is not exactly the same as H_JOIN > + * according to PAPR (e.g., MSR[EE] check and single threaded check > + * is not done in this case), but unlikely to matter. > + */ > + if (cpu == spapr_find_cpu(target)) { > + return h_join(cpu, spapr, opcode, args); > + } > + > + /* > + * This does not implement the dispatch sequence check that PAPR calls > for, > + * but PAPR also specifies a stronger implementation where the target > must > + * be run (or EE, or H_PROD) before H_CONFER returns. Without such a hard > + * scheduling requirement implemented, there is no correctness reason to > + * implement the dispatch sequence check. > + */ > + cs->exception_index = EXCP_YIELD; > + cpu_loop_exit(cs); > + > + return H_SUCCESS; > +} > + > +/* > + * H_PROD and H_CONFER are specified to only modify GPR r3, which is not > + * achievable running under KVM,
Uh.. why not? > although KVM already implements H_CONFER > + * this way. And this seems to contradict the above. > + */ > +static target_ulong h_prod(PowerPCCPU *cpu, SpaprMachineState *spapr, > + target_ulong opcode, target_ulong *args) > +{ > + target_long target = args[0]; > + CPUState *cs; > + > + /* > + * Should set the prod flag in the VPA. So.. why doesn't it? > + */ > + > + cs = CPU(spapr_find_cpu(target)); > + if (!cs) { > + return H_PARAMETER; > + } > + > + cs->halted = 0; > + qemu_cpu_kick(cs); > + > + return H_SUCCESS; > +} > + > static target_ulong h_rtas(PowerPCCPU *cpu, SpaprMachineState *spapr, > target_ulong opcode, target_ulong *args) > { > @@ -1860,6 +1944,10 @@ static void hypercall_register_types(void) > /* hcall-splpar */ > spapr_register_hypercall(H_REGISTER_VPA, h_register_vpa); > spapr_register_hypercall(H_CEDE, h_cede); > + spapr_register_hypercall(H_CONFER, h_confer); > + spapr_register_hypercall(H_JOIN, h_join); I don't see any sign that H_JOIN is implemented in KVM, although H_CONFER and H_PROD certainly are. > + spapr_register_hypercall(H_PROD, h_prod); > + > spapr_register_hypercall(H_SIGNAL_SYS_RESET, h_signal_sys_reset); > > /* processor register resource access h-calls */ Don't we also need to add something to hypertas-calls to advertise the availability of these calls to the guest? -- David Gibson | I'll have my music baroque, and my code david AT gibson.dropbear.id.au | minimalist, thank you. NOT _the_ _other_ | _way_ _around_! http://www.ozlabs.org/~dgibson
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature