On Mon, 2021-05-10 at 16:54 +0300, Maxim Levitsky wrote:
> On Thu, 2021-05-06 at 10:32 +0000, ilstam@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> > From: Ilias Stamatis <ilstam@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >
> > Calculating the current TSC offset is done differently when nested TSC
> > scaling is used.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Ilias Stamatis <ilstam@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > arch/x86/kvm/vmx/vmx.c | 26 ++++++++++++++++++++------
> > 1 file changed, 20 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/vmx/vmx.c b/arch/x86/kvm/vmx/vmx.c
> > index 49241423b854..df7dc0e4c903 100644
> > --- a/arch/x86/kvm/vmx/vmx.c
> > +++ b/arch/x86/kvm/vmx/vmx.c
> > @@ -1797,10 +1797,16 @@ static void setup_msrs(struct vcpu_vmx *vmx)
> > vmx_update_msr_bitmap(&vmx->vcpu);
> > }
> >
> > -static u64 vmx_write_l1_tsc_offset(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, u64 offset)
> > +/*
> > + * This function receives the requested offset for L1 as an argument but it
> > + * actually writes the "current" tsc offset to the VMCS and returns it. The
> > + * current offset might be different in case an L2 guest is currently running
> > + * and its VMCS02 is loaded.
> > + */
>
> (Not related to this patch) It might be a good idea to rename this callback
> instead of this comment, but I am not sure about it.
>
Yes! I was planning to do this on v2 anyway as the name of that function
is completely misleading/wrong IMHO.
I think that even the comment inside it that explains that when L1
doesn't trap WRMSR then L2 TSC writes overwrite L1's TSC is misplaced.
It should go one or more levels above I believe.
This function simply
updates the TSC offset in the current VMCS depending on whether L1 or L2
is executing.
>
> > +static u64 vmx_write_l1_tsc_offset(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, u64 l1_offset)
> > {
> > struct vmcs12 *vmcs12 = get_vmcs12(vcpu);
> > - u64 g_tsc_offset = 0;
> > + u64 cur_offset = l1_offset;
> >
> > /*
> > * We're here if L1 chose not to trap WRMSR to TSC. According
> > @@ -1809,11 +1815,19 @@ static u64 vmx_write_l1_tsc_offset(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, u64 offset)
> > * to the newly set TSC to get L2's TSC.
> > */
> > if (is_guest_mode(vcpu) &&
> > - (vmcs12->cpu_based_vm_exec_control & CPU_BASED_USE_TSC_OFFSETTING))
> > - g_tsc_offset = vmcs12->tsc_offset;
> > + (vmcs12->cpu_based_vm_exec_control & CPU_BASED_USE_TSC_OFFSETTING)) {
> > + if (vmcs12->secondary_vm_exec_control & SECONDARY_EXEC_TSC_SCALING) {
> > + cur_offset = kvm_compute_02_tsc_offset(
> > + l1_offset,
> > + vmcs12->tsc_multiplier,
> > + vmcs12->tsc_offset);
> > + } else {
> > + cur_offset = l1_offset + vmcs12->tsc_offset;
> > + }
> > + }
> >
> > - vmcs_write64(TSC_OFFSET, offset + g_tsc_offset);
> > - return offset + g_tsc_offset;
> > + vmcs_write64(TSC_OFFSET, cur_offset);
> > + return cur_offset;
> > }
> >
> > /*
>
> This code would be ideal to move to common code as SVM will do basically
> the same thing.
> Doesn't have to be done now though.
>
Hmm, how can we do the feature availability checking in common code?
>
> Best regards,
> Maxim Levitsky
>
