qemu-devel
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v5] s390x/pci: add common function measurement b


From: Pierre Morel
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v5] s390x/pci: add common function measurement block
Date: Thu, 3 Jan 2019 11:09:08 +0100
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.2.1

On 19/12/2018 15:22, Cornelia Huck wrote:
On Wed, 19 Dec 2018 13:57:05 +0100
Pierre Morel <address@hidden> wrote:

From: Yi Min Zhao <address@hidden>

Common function measurement block is used to report zPCI internal
counters of successful pcilg/stg/stb and rpcit instructions to
a memory location provided by the program.

This patch introduces a new ZpciFmb structure and schedules a timer
callback to copy the zPCI measures to the FMB in the guest memory
at an interval time set to 4s.

An error while attemping to update the FMB, would generate an error
event to the guest.

The pcilg/stg/stb and rpcit interception handlers increase the
related counter on a successful call.
The guest shall pass a null FMBA (FMB address) in the FIB (Function
Information Block) when it issues a Modify PCI Function Control
instruction to switch off FMB and stop the corresponding timer.

Signed-off-by: Yi Min Zhao <address@hidden>
Signed-off-by: Pierre Morel <address@hidden>
---
  hw/s390x/s390-pci-bus.c  |   4 +-
  hw/s390x/s390-pci-bus.h  |  29 +++++++++++
  hw/s390x/s390-pci-inst.c | 129 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--
  hw/s390x/s390-pci-inst.h |   1 +
  4 files changed, 159 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)


+static void fmb_update(void *opaque)
+{
+    S390PCIBusDevice *pbdev = opaque;
+    int64_t t = qemu_clock_get_ms(QEMU_CLOCK_VIRTUAL);
+    int i;
+
+    /* Update U bit */
+    pbdev->fmb.last_update *= 2;
+    pbdev->fmb.last_update |= UPDATE_U_BIT;
+    if (fmb_do_update(pbdev, offsetof(ZpciFmb, last_update),
+                      pbdev->fmb.last_update, sizeof(uint64_t))) {

Uh... the size of the last_update field would make more sense here...
Also for the other fields below. Is there a reason that does not work?

None, I send a v6 :)



--
Pierre Morel
Linux/KVM/QEMU in Böblingen - Germany




reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]