On Fri, Sep 27, 2019 at 05:19:25PM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote: > On 27/09/19 16:40, Vitaly Kuznetsov wrote: > > Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: > > > >> On 27/09/19 15:53, Vitaly Kuznetsov wrote: > >>> Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: > >>> > >>>> Queued, thanks. > >>> > >>> I'm sorry for late feedback but this commit seems to be causing > >>> selftests failures for me, e.g.: > >>> > >>> # ./x86_64/state_test > >>> Testing guest mode: PA-bits:ANY, VA-bits:48, 4K pages > >>> Guest physical address width detected: 46 > >>> ==== Test Assertion Failure ==== > >>> lib/x86_64/processor.c:1089: r == nmsrs > >>> pid=14431 tid=14431 - Argument list too long > >>> 1 0x000000000040a55f: vcpu_save_state at processor.c:1088 (discriminator 3) > >>> 2 0x00000000004010e3: main at state_test.c:171 (discriminator 4) > >>> 3 0x00007f881eb453d4: ?? ??:0 > >>> 4 0x0000000000401287: _start at ??:? > >>> Unexpected result from KVM_GET_MSRS, r: 36 (failed at 194) That "failed at %x" print line should really be updated to make it clear that it's printing hex... > >>> Is this something known already or should I investigate? > >> > >> No, I didn't know about it, it works here. > >> > > > > Ok, this is a bit weird :-) '194' is 'MSR_ARCH_PERFMON_EVENTSEL0 + > > 14'. In intel_pmu_refresh() nr_arch_gp_counters is set to '8', however, > > rdmsr_safe() for this MSR passes in kvm_init_msr_list() (but it fails > > for 0x18e..0x193!) so it stay in the list. get_gp_pmc(), however, checks > > it against nr_arch_gp_counters and returns a failure. > > Huh, 194h apparently is a "FLEX_RATIO" MSR. I agree that PMU MSRs need > to be checked against CPUID before allowing them. My vote would be to programmatically generate the MSRs using CPUID and the base MSR, as opposed to dumping them into the list and cross-referencing them against CPUID. E.g. there should also be some form of check that the architectural PMUs are even supported.
