On Tue, 2021-05-11 at 15:44 +0300, Maxim Levitsky wrote:
> On Mon, 2021-05-10 at 16:08 +0000, Stamatis, Ilias wrote:
> > 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?
>
> We can add a vendor callback for this.
>
> Just a few thoughts about how I think we can implement
> the nested TSC scaling in (mostly) common code:
>
>
> Assuming that the common code knows that:
> 1. Nested guest is running (already the case)
>
> 2. The format of the scaling multiplier is known
> (thankfully both SVM and VMX use fixed point binary number.
>
> SVM is using 8.32 format and VMX using 16.48 format.
>
> The common code already knows this via
> kvm_max_tsc_scaling_ratio/kvm_tsc_scaling_ratio_frac_bits.
>
> 3. the value of nested TSC scaling multiplier
> is known to the common code.
>
> (a callback to VMX/SVM code to query the TSC scaling value,
> and have it return 1 when TSC scaling is disabled should work)
>
I suppose you mean return kvm_default_tsc_scaling_ratio
>
> Then the common code can do the whole thing, and only
> let the SVM/VMX code write the actual multiplier.
>
> As far as I know on the SVM, the TSC scaling works like that:
>
> 1. SVM has a CPUID bit to indicate that tsc scaling is supported.
> (X86_FEATURE_TSCRATEMSR)
>
> When this bit is set, TSC scale ratio is unconditionally enabled (but
> can be just 1), and it is set via a special MSR (MSR_AMD64_TSC_RATIO)
> rather than a field in VMCB (someone at AMD did cut corners...).
>
> However since the TSC scaling is only effective when a guest is running,
> that MSR can be treated almost as if it was just another VMCB field.
>
> The TSC scale value is 32 bit fraction and another 8 bits the integer value
> (as opposed to 48 bit fraction on VMX and 16 bits integer value).
>
> I don't think that there are any other differences.
>
> I should also note that I can do all of the above myself if
> I end up implementing the nested TSC scaling on AMD
> so I don't object much to the way that this patch series is done.
>
That's fine, I will add the callbacks and move everything to common code. And
then you can fill the svm-specific bits if you want.
Thanks,
Ilias
