[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <98424056-829b-ed80-73f3-ead0bef1e7ab@redhat.com>
Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2022 09:42:41 +0100
From: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
To: Like Xu <like.xu.linux@...il.com>
Cc: Jing Liu <jing2.liu@...el.com>,
Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>,
Jim Mattson <jmattson@...gle.com>,
Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@...hat.com>,
Wanpeng Li <wanpengli@...cent.com>,
Joerg Roedel <joro@...tes.org>, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] KVM: x86/cpuid: Clear XFD for component i if the base
feature is missing
On 1/18/22 07:43, Like Xu wrote:
> On 18/1/2022 1:31 am, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>> On 1/17/22 08:45, Like Xu wrote:
>>> From: Like Xu <likexu@...cent.com>
>>>
>>> According to Intel extended feature disable (XFD) spec, the
>>> sub-function i
>>> (i > 1) of CPUID function 0DH enumerates "details for state component i.
>>> ECX[2] enumerates support for XFD support for this state component."
>>>
>>> If KVM does not report F(XFD) feature (e.g. due to CONFIG_X86_64),
>>> then the corresponding XFD support for any state component i
>>> should also be removed. Translate this dependency into KVM terms.
>>>
>>> Fixes: 690a757d610e ("kvm: x86: Add CPUID support for Intel AMX")
>>> Signed-off-by: Like Xu <likexu@...cent.com>
>>> ---
>>> arch/x86/kvm/cpuid.c | 3 +++
>>> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/cpuid.c b/arch/x86/kvm/cpuid.c
>>> index c55e57b30e81..e96efef4f048 100644
>>> --- a/arch/x86/kvm/cpuid.c
>>> +++ b/arch/x86/kvm/cpuid.c
>>> @@ -886,6 +886,9 @@ static inline int __do_cpuid_func(struct
>>> kvm_cpuid_array *array, u32 function)
>>> --array->nent;
>>> continue;
>>> }
>>> +
>>> + if (!kvm_cpu_cap_has(X86_FEATURE_XFD))
>>> + entry->ecx &= ~BIT_ULL(2);
>>> entry->edx = 0;
>>> }
>>> break;
>>
>> Generally this is something that is left to userspace. Apart from the
>> usecase of "call KVM_GET_SUPPORTED_CPUID and pass it to
>> KVM_SET_CPUID2", userspace should know what any changed bits mean.
>>
>> Paolo
>>
>
> I totally agree that setting the appropriate CPUID bits for a feature is
> a user space thing.
>
> But this patch is more focused on fixing a different type of problem,
> which is
> that the capabilities exposed by KVM should not *contradict each other* :
>
> a user space may be confused with the current code base :
> - why KVM does not have F(XFD) feature (MSR_IA32_XFD and XFD_ERR
> non-exit),
> - but KVM reports XFD support for state component i individually;
Got it. Yeah, the patch makes sense for the sake of CONFIG_X86_64.
Paolo
> This is like KVM reporting PEBS when no PMU capacity is reported (due to
> module param).
Powered by blists - more mailing lists