lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2020]   [Sep]   [16]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH RFC 0/2] KVM: x86: allow for more CPUID entries
On 09/16 09:33, Dr. David Alan Gilbert wrote:
> * Wei Huang (wei.huang2@amd.com) wrote:
> > On 09/15 05:51, Dr. David Alan Gilbert wrote:
> > > * Vitaly Kuznetsov (vkuznets@redhat.com) wrote:
> > > > With QEMU and newer AMD CPUs (namely: Epyc 'Rome') the current limit for
> >
> > Could you elaborate on this limit? On Rome, I counted ~35 CPUID functions which
> > include Fn0000_xxxx, Fn4000_xxxx and Fn8000_xxxx.
>
> On my 7302P the output of:
> cpuid -1 -r | wc -l
>
> is 61, there is one line of header in there.
>
> However in a guest I see more; and I think that's because KVM tends to
> list the CPUID entries for a lot of disabled Intel features, even on
> AMD, e.g. 0x11-0x1f which AMD doesn't have, are listed in a KVM guest.
> Then you add the KVM CPUIDs at 4...0 and 4....1.
>

It is indeed a mixing bag. Some are added even though AMD CPU doesn't define
them. BTW I also believe that cpuid command lists more CPUIDs than the real
value of cpuid->nent in kvm_vcpu_ioctl_set_cpuid(2).

Anyway I don't have objection to this patchset.

> IMHO we should be filtering those out for at least two reasons:
> a) They're wrong
> b) We're probably not keeping the set of visible CPUID fields the same
> when we move between host kernels, and that can't be good for
> migration.
>
> Still, those are separate problems.
>
> Dave
>
> > > > KVM_MAX_CPUID_ENTRIES(80) is reported to be hit. Last time it was raised
> > > > from '40' in 2010. We can, of course, just bump it a little bit to fix
> > > > the immediate issue but the report made me wonder why we need to pre-
> > > > allocate vcpu->arch.cpuid_entries array instead of sizing it dynamically.
> > > > This RFC is intended to feed my curiosity.
> > > >
> > > > Very mildly tested with selftests/kvm-unit-tests and nothing seems to
> > > > break. I also don't have access to the system where the original issue
> > > > was reported but chances we're fixing it are very good IMO as just the
> > > > second patch alone was reported to be sufficient.
> > > >
> > > > Reported-by: Dr. David Alan Gilbert <dgilbert@redhat.com>
> > >
> > > Oh nice, I was just going to bump the magic number :-)
> > >
> > > Anyway, this seems to work for me, so:
> > >
> > > Tested-by: Dr. David Alan Gilbert <dgilbert@redhat.com>
> > >
> >
> > I tested on two platforms and the patches worked fine. So no objection on the
> > design.
> >
> > Tested-by: Wei Huang <wei.huang2@amd.com>
> >
> > > > Vitaly Kuznetsov (2):
> > > > KVM: x86: allocate vcpu->arch.cpuid_entries dynamically
> > > > KVM: x86: bump KVM_MAX_CPUID_ENTRIES
> > > >
> > > > arch/x86/include/asm/kvm_host.h | 4 +--
> > > > arch/x86/kvm/cpuid.c | 55 ++++++++++++++++++++++++---------
> > > > arch/x86/kvm/x86.c | 1 +
> > > > 3 files changed, 43 insertions(+), 17 deletions(-)
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > 2.25.4
> > > >
> > > --
> > > Dr. David Alan Gilbert / dgilbert@redhat.com / Manchester, UK
> > >
> >
> --
> Dr. David Alan Gilbert / dgilbert@redhat.com / Manchester, UK
>

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2020-09-16 21:25    [W:0.060 / U:1.940 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site