[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <801d663a-d448-401d-a957-c9825aca06c3@suse.com>
Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2025 16:59:21 +0200
From: Juergen Gross <jgross@...e.com>
To: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>, Xin Li <xin@...or.com>
Cc: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"kvm@...r.kernel.org" <kvm@...r.kernel.org>, "H. Peter Anvin"
<hpa@...or.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: MSR access API uses in KVM x86
On 22.04.25 16:40, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 21, 2025, Xin Li wrote:
>> It looks to me that MSR access API uses in KVM x86 are NOT consistent;
>> sometimes {wr,rd}msrl() are used and sometimes native_{wr,rd}msrl() are
>> used.
>>
>> Was there a reason that how a generic or native MSR API was chosen?
>
> I doubt anyone knows for sure; that'd likely require a time travelling device
> and/or telepathic abilities :-)
>
>> In my opinion KVM should use the native MSR APIs, which can streamline
>> operations and potentially improve performance by avoiding the overhead
>> associated with generic MSR API indirect calls when CONFIG_XEN_PV=y.
>
> As Jürgen pointed out, they aren't indirect calls. Though IIUC, there is still
> a direct CALL and thus a RET when PARAVIRT_XXL=Y.
>
> I agree that using PV APIs in KVM doesn't make much sense, as running KVM in a
> XEN PV guest doesn't seem like something we should optimize for, if it's even
> supported.
Shudder. :-D
No, definitely not supported.
Juergen
Download attachment "OpenPGP_0xB0DE9DD628BF132F.asc" of type "application/pgp-keys" (3684 bytes)
Download attachment "OpenPGP_signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (496 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists