On Fri, Sep 6, 2019 at 1:43 PM Krish Sadhukhan <krish.sadhukhan@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > On 9/6/19 1:30 PM, Jim Mattson wrote: > > On Fri, Sep 6, 2019 at 12:59 PM Krish Sadhukhan > > <krish.sadhukhan@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> > >> On 9/6/19 9:48 AM, Jim Mattson wrote: > >> > >> On Wed, Aug 21, 2019 at 11:20 AM Jim Mattson <jmattson@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> > >> These MSRs should be enumerated by KVM_GET_MSR_INDEX_LIST, so that > >> userspace knows that these MSRs may be part of the vCPU state. > >> > >> Signed-off-by: Jim Mattson <jmattson@xxxxxxxxxx> > >> Reviewed-by: Eric Hankland <ehankland@xxxxxxxxxx> > >> Reviewed-by: Peter Shier <pshier@xxxxxxxxxx> > >> > >> --- > >> arch/x86/kvm/x86.c | 41 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > >> 1 file changed, 41 insertions(+) > >> > >> diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/x86.c b/arch/x86/kvm/x86.c > >> index 93b0bd45ac73..ecaaa411538f 100644 > >> --- a/arch/x86/kvm/x86.c > >> +++ b/arch/x86/kvm/x86.c > >> @@ -1140,6 +1140,42 @@ static u32 msrs_to_save[] = { > >> MSR_IA32_RTIT_ADDR1_A, MSR_IA32_RTIT_ADDR1_B, > >> MSR_IA32_RTIT_ADDR2_A, MSR_IA32_RTIT_ADDR2_B, > >> MSR_IA32_RTIT_ADDR3_A, MSR_IA32_RTIT_ADDR3_B, > >> + MSR_ARCH_PERFMON_FIXED_CTR0, MSR_ARCH_PERFMON_FIXED_CTR1, > >> + MSR_ARCH_PERFMON_FIXED_CTR0 + 2, MSR_ARCH_PERFMON_FIXED_CTR0 + 3, > >> + MSR_CORE_PERF_FIXED_CTR_CTRL, MSR_CORE_PERF_GLOBAL_STATUS, > >> + MSR_CORE_PERF_GLOBAL_CTRL, MSR_CORE_PERF_GLOBAL_OVF_CTRL, > >> + MSR_ARCH_PERFMON_PERFCTR0, MSR_ARCH_PERFMON_PERFCTR1, > >> + MSR_ARCH_PERFMON_PERFCTR0 + 2, MSR_ARCH_PERFMON_PERFCTR0 + 3, > >> + MSR_ARCH_PERFMON_PERFCTR0 + 4, MSR_ARCH_PERFMON_PERFCTR0 + 5, > >> + MSR_ARCH_PERFMON_PERFCTR0 + 6, MSR_ARCH_PERFMON_PERFCTR0 + 7, > >> + MSR_ARCH_PERFMON_PERFCTR0 + 8, MSR_ARCH_PERFMON_PERFCTR0 + 9, > >> + MSR_ARCH_PERFMON_PERFCTR0 + 10, MSR_ARCH_PERFMON_PERFCTR0 + 11, > >> + MSR_ARCH_PERFMON_PERFCTR0 + 12, MSR_ARCH_PERFMON_PERFCTR0 + 13, > >> + MSR_ARCH_PERFMON_PERFCTR0 + 14, MSR_ARCH_PERFMON_PERFCTR0 + 15, > >> + MSR_ARCH_PERFMON_PERFCTR0 + 16, MSR_ARCH_PERFMON_PERFCTR0 + 17, > >> + MSR_ARCH_PERFMON_PERFCTR0 + 18, MSR_ARCH_PERFMON_PERFCTR0 + 19, > >> + MSR_ARCH_PERFMON_PERFCTR0 + 20, MSR_ARCH_PERFMON_PERFCTR0 + 21, > >> + MSR_ARCH_PERFMON_PERFCTR0 + 22, MSR_ARCH_PERFMON_PERFCTR0 + 23, > >> + MSR_ARCH_PERFMON_PERFCTR0 + 24, MSR_ARCH_PERFMON_PERFCTR0 + 25, > >> + MSR_ARCH_PERFMON_PERFCTR0 + 26, MSR_ARCH_PERFMON_PERFCTR0 + 27, > >> + MSR_ARCH_PERFMON_PERFCTR0 + 28, MSR_ARCH_PERFMON_PERFCTR0 + 29, > >> + MSR_ARCH_PERFMON_PERFCTR0 + 30, MSR_ARCH_PERFMON_PERFCTR0 + 31, > >> + MSR_ARCH_PERFMON_EVENTSEL0, MSR_ARCH_PERFMON_EVENTSEL1, > >> + MSR_ARCH_PERFMON_EVENTSEL0 + 2, MSR_ARCH_PERFMON_EVENTSEL0 + 3, > >> + MSR_ARCH_PERFMON_EVENTSEL0 + 4, MSR_ARCH_PERFMON_EVENTSEL0 + 5, > >> + MSR_ARCH_PERFMON_EVENTSEL0 + 6, MSR_ARCH_PERFMON_EVENTSEL0 + 7, > >> + MSR_ARCH_PERFMON_EVENTSEL0 + 8, MSR_ARCH_PERFMON_EVENTSEL0 + 9, > >> + MSR_ARCH_PERFMON_EVENTSEL0 + 10, MSR_ARCH_PERFMON_EVENTSEL0 + 11, > >> + MSR_ARCH_PERFMON_EVENTSEL0 + 12, MSR_ARCH_PERFMON_EVENTSEL0 + 13, > >> + MSR_ARCH_PERFMON_EVENTSEL0 + 14, MSR_ARCH_PERFMON_EVENTSEL0 + 15, > >> + MSR_ARCH_PERFMON_EVENTSEL0 + 16, MSR_ARCH_PERFMON_EVENTSEL0 + 17, > >> + MSR_ARCH_PERFMON_EVENTSEL0 + 18, MSR_ARCH_PERFMON_EVENTSEL0 + 19, > >> + MSR_ARCH_PERFMON_EVENTSEL0 + 20, MSR_ARCH_PERFMON_EVENTSEL0 + 21, > >> + MSR_ARCH_PERFMON_EVENTSEL0 + 22, MSR_ARCH_PERFMON_EVENTSEL0 + 23, > >> + MSR_ARCH_PERFMON_EVENTSEL0 + 24, MSR_ARCH_PERFMON_EVENTSEL0 + 25, > >> + MSR_ARCH_PERFMON_EVENTSEL0 + 26, MSR_ARCH_PERFMON_EVENTSEL0 + 27, > >> + MSR_ARCH_PERFMON_EVENTSEL0 + 28, MSR_ARCH_PERFMON_EVENTSEL0 + 29, > >> + MSR_ARCH_PERFMON_EVENTSEL0 + 30, MSR_ARCH_PERFMON_EVENTSEL0 + 31, > >> }; > >> > >> > >> Should we have separate #defines for the MSRs that are at offset from the base MSR? > > How about macros that take an offset argument, rather than a whole > > slew of new macros? > > > Yes, that works too. > > > > > >> static unsigned num_msrs_to_save; > >> @@ -4989,6 +5025,11 @@ static void kvm_init_msr_list(void) > >> u32 dummy[2]; > >> unsigned i, j; > >> > >> + BUILD_BUG_ON_MSG(INTEL_PMC_MAX_FIXED != 4, > >> + "Please update the fixed PMCs in msrs_to_save[]"); > >> + BUILD_BUG_ON_MSG(INTEL_PMC_MAX_GENERIC != 32, > >> + "Please update the generic perfctr/eventsel MSRs in msrs_to_save[]"); > >> > >> > >> Just curious how the condition can ever become false because we are comparing two static numbers here. > > Someone just has to change the macros. In fact, I originally developed > > this change on a version of the kernel where INTEL_PMC_MAX_FIXED was > > 3, and so I had: > > > >> + BUILD_BUG_ON_MSG(INTEL_PMC_MAX_FIXED != 3, > >> + "Please update the fixed PMCs in msrs_to_save[]") > > When I cherry-picked the change to Linux tip, the BUILD_BUG_ON fired, > > and I updated the fixed PMCs in msrs_to_save[]. > > > >> + > >> for (i = j = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(msrs_to_save); i++) { > >> if (rdmsr_safe(msrs_to_save[i], &dummy[0], &dummy[1]) < 0) > >> continue; > >> -- > >> 2.23.0.187.g17f5b7556c-goog > >> > >> Ping. > >> > >> > >> Also, since these MSRs are Intel-specific, should these be enumerated via 'intel_pmu_ops' ? > > msrs_to_save[] is filtered to remove MSRs that aren't supported on the > > host. Or are you asking something else? > > > I am referring to the fact that we are enumerating Intel-specific MSRs > in the generic KVM code. Should there be some sort of #define guard to > not compile the code on AMD ? No. msrs_to_save[] contains *all* MSRs that may be relevant on some platform. Notice that it already includes AMD-only MSRs (e.g. MSR_VM_HSAVE_PA) and Intel-only MSRs (e.g. MSR_IA32_BNDCFGS). The MSRs that are not relevant are filtered out in kvm_init_msr_list(). This list probably should include the AMD equivalents as well, but I haven't looked into the AMD vPMU yet.