[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <ZrNyKqjSiAhJGwIW@google.com>
Date: Wed, 7 Aug 2024 06:10:02 -0700
From: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>
To: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
Cc: Eiichi Tsukata <eiichi.tsukata@...anix.com>, chao.gao@...el.com, tglx@...utronix.de,
mingo@...hat.com, bp@...en8.de, dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com, x86@...nel.org,
hpa@...or.com, vkuznets@...hat.com, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, jon@...anix.com
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] KVM: x86: hyper-v: Inhibit APICv with VP Assist on SPR/EMR
On Tue, Aug 06, 2024, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 6, 2024 at 6:03 PM Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com> wrote:
> > > As is noted in [1], this issue is considered to be a microcode issue
> > > specific to SPR/EMR.
> >
> > I don't think we can claim that without a more explicit statement from Intel.
> > And I would really like Intel to clarify exactly what is going on, so that (a)
> > it can be properly documented and (b) we can implement a precise, targeted
> > workaround in KVM.
>
> It is not even clear to me why this patch has any effect at all,
> because PV EOI and APICv don't work together anyway: PV EOI requires
> apic->highest_isr_cache == -1 (see apic_sync_pv_eoi_to_guest()) but
> the cache is only set without APICv (see apic_set_isr()). Therefore,
> PV EOI should be basically a no-op with APICv in use.
Per Chao, this is a ucode bug though. Speculating wildly, I wonder if Intel added
acceleration and/or redirection of HV_X64_MSR_EOI when APICv is enabled, e.g. to
speed up existing VMs, and something went sideways.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists