[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20220426081550.GO2731@worktop.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Tue, 26 Apr 2022 10:15:50 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Sandipan Das <sandipan.das@....com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-perf-users@...r.kernel.org,
x86@...nel.org, bp@...en8.de, dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com,
acme@...nel.org, mark.rutland@....com,
alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com, namhyung@...nel.org,
jolsa@...nel.org, tglx@...utronix.de, mingo@...hat.com,
pbonzini@...hat.com, jmattson@...gle.com, like.xu.linux@...il.com,
eranian@...gle.com, ananth.narayan@....com, ravi.bangoria@....com,
santosh.shukla@....com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 7/7] kvm: x86/cpuid: Fix CPUID leaf 0xA
On Thu, Apr 21, 2022 at 11:16:59AM +0530, Sandipan Das wrote:
> On some x86 processors, CPUID leaf 0xA provides information
> on Architectural Performance Monitoring features. It
> advertises a PMU version which Qemu uses to determine the
> availability of additional MSRs to manage the PMCs.
>
> Upon receiving a KVM_GET_SUPPORTED_CPUID ioctl request for
> the same, the kernel constructs return values based on the
> x86_pmu_capability irrespective of the vendor.
>
> This leaf and the additional MSRs are not supported on AMD
> processors. If PerfMonV2 is detected, the PMU version is
> set to 2 and guest startup breaks because of an attempt to
> access a non-existent MSR. Return zeros to avoid this.
>
> Fixes: a6c06ed1a60a ("KVM: Expose the architectural performance monitoring CPUID leaf")
> Reported-by: Vasant Hegde <vasant.hegde@....com>
> Signed-off-by: Sandipan Das <sandipan.das@....com>
> ---
> arch/x86/kvm/cpuid.c | 5 +++++
> 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/cpuid.c b/arch/x86/kvm/cpuid.c
> index 4b62d80bb22f..6bd65cad75ef 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/kvm/cpuid.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/kvm/cpuid.c
> @@ -872,6 +872,11 @@ static inline int __do_cpuid_func(struct kvm_cpuid_array *array, u32 function)
> union cpuid10_eax eax;
> union cpuid10_edx edx;
>
> + if (boot_cpu_data.x86_vendor == X86_VENDOR_AMD) {
This is the obligatory question about HYGON; should they be included
here?
x86 is getting a number of me-too patches from both sides, where
behaviour has diverged for no raisin and then needs to be fixed up
again.
> + entry->eax = entry->ebx = entry->ecx = entry->edx = 0;
> + break;
> + }
> +
> perf_get_x86_pmu_capability(&cap);
>
> /*
> --
> 2.32.0
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists