[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <f97cb2e3-9b53-6206-4523-8b15b0ee83e4@redhat.com>
Date: Tue, 3 May 2022 14:01:18 +0200
From: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
To: Jim Mattson <jmattson@...gle.com>,
Sandipan Das <sandipan.das@....com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-perf-users@...r.kernel.org,
x86@...nel.org, peterz@...radead.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,
like.xu.linux@...il.com, eranian@...gle.com, puwen@...on.cn,
ananth.narayan@....com, ravi.bangoria@....com,
santosh.shukla@....com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 7/7] kvm: x86/cpuid: Fix CPUID leaf 0xA
On 5/3/22 01:50, Jim Mattson wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 27, 2022 at 4:34 AM Sandipan Das <sandipan.das@....com> 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
>> and Hygon processors. If AMD 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..e66ebb747084 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 (!static_cpu_has(X86_FEATURE_ARCH_PERFMON)) {
>
> Should this be checking kvm_cpu_cap_has(X86_FEATURE_ARCH_PERFMON) instead?
Yes, it should. I have queued this patch for 5.18.
Paolo
Powered by blists - more mailing lists