[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <6a7f13d1-ed00-b4a6-c39b-dd8ba189d639@redhat.com>
Date: Wed, 9 Mar 2022 19:47:12 +0100
From: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
To: Jim Mattson <jmattson@...gle.com>,
Maxim Levitsky <mlevitsk@...hat.com>
Cc: kvm@...r.kernel.org, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>,
Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, x86@...nel.org,
Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@...hat.com>,
Joerg Roedel <joro@...tes.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Wanpeng Li <wanpengli@...cent.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 4/7] KVM: x86: nSVM: support PAUSE filter threshold and
count when cpu_pm=on
On 3/9/22 19:35, Jim Mattson wrote:
> I didn't think pause filtering was virtualizable, since the value of
> the internal counter isn't exposed on VM-exit.
>
> On bare metal, for instance, assuming the hypervisor doesn't intercept
> CPUID, the following code would quickly trigger a PAUSE #VMEXIT with
> the filter count set to 2.
>
> 1:
> pause
> cpuid
> jmp 1
>
> Since L0 intercepts CPUID, however, L2 will exit to L0 on each loop
> iteration, and when L0 resumes L2, the internal counter will be set to
> 2 again. L1 will never see a PAUSE #VMEXIT.
>
> How do you handle this?
>
I would expect that the same would happen on an SMI or a host interrupt.
1:
pause
outl al, 0xb2
jmp 1
In general a PAUSE vmexit will mostly benefit the VM that is pausing, so
having a partial implementation would be better than disabling it
altogether.
Paolo
Powered by blists - more mailing lists