qemu-s390x
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

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

Re: [qemu-s390x] [PATCH v6] s390x/pci: add common function measurement b


From: David Hildenbrand
Subject: Re: [qemu-s390x] [PATCH v6] s390x/pci: add common function measurement block
Date: Mon, 7 Jan 2019 12:30:35 +0100
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.3.1

On 03.01.19 11:17, Pierre Morel 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 | 133 
> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--
>  hw/s390x/s390-pci-inst.h |   1 +
>  4 files changed, 163 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/hw/s390x/s390-pci-bus.c b/hw/s390x/s390-pci-bus.c
> index 060ff06..f0d34dd 100644
> --- a/hw/s390x/s390-pci-bus.c
> +++ b/hw/s390x/s390-pci-bus.c
> @@ -989,6 +989,7 @@ static void s390_pcihost_hot_unplug(HotplugHandler 
> *hotplug_dev,
>      bus = pci_get_bus(pci_dev);
>      devfn = pci_dev->devfn;
>      object_unparent(OBJECT(pci_dev));
> +    fmb_timer_free(pbdev);

I wonder if this should go into the unrealize function instead.



-- 

Thanks,

David / dhildenb



reply via email to

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