[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20240701110058.098c6445@jacob-builder>
Date: Mon, 1 Jul 2024 11:00:58 -0700
From: Jacob Pan <jacob.jun.pan@...ux.intel.com>
To: Xin Li <xin@...or.com>
Cc: X86 Kernel <x86@...nel.org>, Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, Ingo
Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>, Xin Li
<xin3.li@...el.com>, linux-perf-users@...r.kernel.org, Peter Zijlstra
<peterz@...radead.org>, Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>, Tony Luck
<tony.luck@...el.com>, Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>, acme@...nel.org,
kan.liang@...ux.intel.com, Andi Kleen <andi.kleen@...el.com>, "Mehta,
Sohil" <sohil.mehta@...el.com>, Zeng Guang <guang.zeng@...el.com>,
jacob.jun.pan@...ux.intel.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 07/11] KVM: VMX: Handle NMI Source report in VM exit
On Mon, 1 Jul 2024 10:03:58 -0700, Xin Li <xin@...or.com> wrote:
> On 7/1/2024 8:45 AM, Jacob Pan wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, 28 Jun 2024 21:07:04 -0700, Xin Li <xin@...or.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On 6/28/2024 1:18 PM, Jacob Pan wrote:
> >>> From: Zeng Guang <guang.zeng@...el.com>
> >>>
> >>> If the "NMI exiting" VM-execution control is 1, the value of the
> >>> 16-bit NMI source vector is saved in the exit-qualification field in
> >>> the VMCS when VM exits occur on CPUs that support NMI source.
> >>>
> >>> KVM that is aware of NMI-source reporting will push the bitmask of NMI
> >>> source vectors as the exceptoin event data field on the stack for then
> >>> entry of FRED exception. Subsequently, the host NMI exception handler
> >>> is invoked which will process NMI source information in the event
> >>> data. This operation is independent of vCPU FRED enabling status.
> >>>
> >>> Signed-off-by: Zeng Guang <guang.zeng@...el.com>
> >>> Signed-off-by: Jacob Pan <jacob.jun.pan@...ux.intel.com>
> >>> ---
> >>> arch/x86/entry/entry_64_fred.S | 2 +-
> >>> arch/x86/kvm/vmx/vmx.c | 11 ++++++++---
> >>> 2 files changed, 9 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
> >>>
> >>> diff --git a/arch/x86/entry/entry_64_fred.S
> >>> b/arch/x86/entry/entry_64_fred.S index a02bc6f3d2e6..0d934a3fcaf8
> >>> 100644 --- a/arch/x86/entry/entry_64_fred.S
> >>> +++ b/arch/x86/entry/entry_64_fred.S
> >>> @@ -92,7 +92,7 @@ SYM_FUNC_START(asm_fred_entry_from_kvm)
> >>> * +--------+-----------------+
> >>> */
> >>> push $0 /* Reserved, must
> >>> be 0 */
> >>> - push $0 /* Event data, 0 for
> >>> IRQ/NMI */
> >>> + push %rsi /* Event data for IRQ/NMI */
> >>> push %rdi /* fred_ss handed in by
> >>> the caller */ push %rbp
> >>> pushf
> >>
> >> This belongs to the previous patch, it is part of the host changes.
> > right, will do.
> >
> >>
> >>> diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/vmx/vmx.c b/arch/x86/kvm/vmx/vmx.c
> >>> index 4e7b36081b76..6719c598fa5f 100644
> >>> --- a/arch/x86/kvm/vmx/vmx.c
> >>> +++ b/arch/x86/kvm/vmx/vmx.c
> >>> @@ -7331,10 +7331,15 @@ static noinstr void vmx_vcpu_enter_exit(struct
> >>> kvm_vcpu *vcpu, if ((u16)vmx->exit_reason.basic ==
> >>> EXIT_REASON_EXCEPTION_NMI && is_nmi(vmx_get_intr_info(vcpu))) {
> >>> kvm_before_interrupt(vcpu, KVM_HANDLING_NMI);
> >>> - if (cpu_feature_enabled(X86_FEATURE_FRED))
> >>> - fred_entry_from_kvm(EVENT_TYPE_NMI,
> >>> NMI_VECTOR, 0);
> >>> - else
> >>> + if (cpu_feature_enabled(X86_FEATURE_FRED)) {
> >>> + unsigned long edata = 0;
> >>> +
> >>> + if
> >>> (cpu_feature_enabled(X86_FEATURE_NMI_SOURCE))
> >>> + edata = vmx_get_exit_qual(vcpu);
> >>> + fred_entry_from_kvm(EVENT_TYPE_NMI,
> >>> NMI_VECTOR, edata);
> >>
> >> Simply do fred_entry_from_kvm(EVENT_TYPE_NMI, NMI_VECTOR,
> >> vmx_get_exit_qual(vcpu))?
> > I don't have strong preference but having a local variable improves
> > readability IMHO.
>
> My point was, do we actually need this check:
> (cpu_feature_enabled(X86_FEATURE_NMI_SOURCE)?
I also pondered about the value of this CPUID bit if it is consistently
linked with the FRED bit. But since the architecture provided this
additional enumeration, as noted in Chapter 9 of the FRED specification,
which states:
"Processors that support FRED *may* also support a related feature called
NMI-source reporting".
The use of "may" suggests that there are scenarios where FRED might exist
without NMI-source reporting. To ensure future compatibility, I believe
it is still valid to maintain this check.
Thanks,
Jacob
Powered by blists - more mailing lists