[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <7e840f1c-d8e2-3374-5009-f2ab41a87386@intel.com>
Date: Tue, 23 Jun 2020 09:21:28 +0800
From: Xiaoyao Li <xiaoyao.li@...el.com>
To: Sean Christopherson <sean.j.christopherson@...el.com>,
Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
Cc: Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@...hat.com>,
Wanpeng Li <wanpengli@...cent.com>,
Jim Mattson <jmattson@...gle.com>,
Joerg Roedel <joro@...tes.org>, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Jingqi Liu <jingqi.liu@...el.com>,
Tao Xu <tao3.xu@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] KVM: VMX: Stop context switching MSR_IA32_UMWAIT_CONTROL
On 6/23/2020 8:51 AM, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> Remove support for context switching between the guest's and host's
> desired UMWAIT_CONTROL. Propagating the guest's value to hardware isn't
> required for correct functionality, e.g. KVM intercepts reads and writes
> to the MSR, and the latency effects of the settings controlled by the
> MSR are not architecturally visible.
>
> As a general rule, KVM should not allow the guest to control power
> management settings unless explicitly enabled by userspace, e.g. see
> KVM_CAP_X86_DISABLE_EXITS. E.g. Intel's SDM explicitly states that C0.2
> can improve the performance of SMT siblings. A devious guest could
> disable C0.2 so as to improve the performance of their workloads at the
> detriment to workloads running in the host or on other VMs.
>
> Wholesale removal of UMWAIT_CONTROL context switching also fixes a race
> condition where updates from the host may cause KVM to enter the guest
> with the incorrect value. Because updates are are propagated to all
> CPUs via IPI (SMP function callback), the value in hardware may be
> stale with respect to the cached value and KVM could enter the guest
> with the wrong value in hardware. As above, the guest can't observe the
> bad value, but it's a weird and confusing wart in the implementation.
>
> Removal also fixes the unnecessary usage of VMX's atomic load/store MSR
> lists. Using the lists is only necessary for MSRs that are required for
> correct functionality immediately upon VM-Enter/VM-Exit, e.g. EFER on
> old hardware, or for MSRs that need to-the-uop precision, e.g. perf
> related MSRs. For UMWAIT_CONTROL, the effects are only visible in the
> kernel via TPAUSE/delay(), and KVM doesn't do any form of delay in
> vcpu_vmx_run().
>Using the atomic lists is undesirable as they are more
> expensive than direct RDMSR/WRMSR.
Do you mean the extra handling of atomic list facility in kvm? Or just
mean vm-exit/-entry MSR-load/save in VMX hardware is expensive than
direct RDMSR/WRMSR instruction?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists