On 17/10/2018 16:47, Vitaly Kuznetsov wrote:
>>> + if (!hv_evmcs || !(hv_evmcs->hv_clean_fields &
>>> + HV_VMX_ENLIGHTENED_CLEAN_FIELD_GUEST_GRP2)) {
>>> + vmcs_write16(GUEST_CS_SELECTOR, vmcs12->guest_cs_selector);
>>> + vmcs_write32(GUEST_CS_LIMIT, vmcs12->guest_cs_limit);
>>> + vmcs_write32(GUEST_CS_AR_BYTES, vmcs12->guest_cs_ar_bytes);
>>> + vmcs_writel(GUEST_ES_BASE, vmcs12->guest_es_base);
>>> + vmcs_writel(GUEST_CS_BASE, vmcs12->guest_cs_base);
>>> + }
>> For what it's worth, I suspect that these can be moved to
>> prepare_vmcs02_full. The initial implementation of shadow VMCS did not
>> expose "unrestricted guest" to the L1 hypervisor, and emulation does a
>> lot of accesses to CS (of course). Not sure how ES base ended up in
>> there and not DS base, though...
> I tried unshadowing all these fields and at least Hyper-V on KVM
> (without using eVMCS of course) experiences a 1200-1300 cpu cycles
> regression during tight cpuid loop test. I checked and this happens
> because it likes vmreading GUEST_CS_AR_BYTES a lot.
Go figure. :) Liran, do you happen to know if ESX does something
similar with CS descriptor cache fields?
Paolo
