Re: [PATCH v5 6/8] KVM: VMX: enable IPI virtualization

[Zeng Guang <guang.zeng@xxxxxxxxx>]

On 1/14/2022 5:47 AM, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 31, 2021, Zeng Guang wrote:
> > +/* Tertiary Processor-Based VM-Execution Controls, word 3 */
> > +#define VMX_FEATURE_IPI_VIRT		(3*32 +  4) /* "" Enable IPI virtualization */
> >   #endif /* _ASM_X86_VMXFEATURES_H */
> > diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/vmx/capabilities.h b/arch/x86/kvm/vmx/capabilities.h
> > index 38d414f64e61..78b0525dd991 100644
> > --- a/arch/x86/kvm/vmx/capabilities.h
> > +++ b/arch/x86/kvm/vmx/capabilities.h
> > @@ -12,6 +12,7 @@ extern bool __read_mostly enable_ept;
> >   extern bool __read_mostly enable_unrestricted_guest;
> >   extern bool __read_mostly enable_ept_ad_bits;
> >   extern bool __read_mostly enable_pml;
> > +extern bool __read_mostly enable_ipiv;
> >   extern int __read_mostly pt_mode;
> >   
> >   #define PT_MODE_SYSTEM		0
> > @@ -283,6 +284,12 @@ static inline bool cpu_has_vmx_apicv(void)
> >   		cpu_has_vmx_posted_intr();
> >   }
> >   
> > +static inline bool cpu_has_vmx_ipiv(void)
> > +{
> > +	return vmcs_config.cpu_based_3rd_exec_ctrl &
> > +		TERTIARY_EXEC_IPI_VIRT;
> Unnecessary newline, that fits on a single line.

OK.

> > +}
> > +
> >   static inline bool cpu_has_vmx_flexpriority(void)
> >   {
> >   	return cpu_has_vmx_tpr_shadow() &&
> > diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/vmx/posted_intr.c b/arch/x86/kvm/vmx/posted_intr.c
> > index 1c94783b5a54..bd9c9a89726a 100644
> > --- a/arch/x86/kvm/vmx/posted_intr.c
> > +++ b/arch/x86/kvm/vmx/posted_intr.c
> > @@ -85,11 +85,16 @@ static bool vmx_can_use_vtd_pi(struct kvm *kvm)
> >   		irq_remapping_cap(IRQ_POSTING_CAP);
> >   }
> >   
> > +static bool vmx_can_use_ipiv_pi(struct kvm *kvm)
> > +{
> > +	return irqchip_in_kernel(kvm) && enable_apicv && enable_ipiv;
> enable_ipiv should be cleared if !enable_apicv, i.e. the enable_apicv check
> here should be unnecessary.
Right, it's more concise.  Thanks.

> > +}
> > +
> >   void vmx_vcpu_pi_put(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
> >   {
> >   	struct pi_desc *pi_desc = vcpu_to_pi_desc(vcpu);
> >   
> > -	if (!vmx_can_use_vtd_pi(vcpu->kvm))
> > +	if (!(vmx_can_use_ipiv_pi(vcpu->kvm) || vmx_can_use_vtd_pi(vcpu->kvm)))
> Purely because I am beyond terrible at reading !(A || B) and !(A && B), can we
> write this as:
>
> 	if (!vmx_can_use_ipiv_pi(vcpu->kvm) && !vmx_can_use_vtd_pi(vcpu->kvm))
> 		return;
>
> Or better, add a helper.  We could even drop vmx_can_use_ipiv_pi() altogether, e.g.
>
> static bool vmx_can_use_posted_interrupts(struct kvm *kvm)
> {
> 	return irqchip_in_kernel(kvm) &&
> 	       (enable_ipiv || vmx_can_use_vtd_pi(kvm));
> }
>
> Or with both helpers:
>
> static bool vmx_can_use_posted_interrupts(struct kvm *kvm)
> {
> 	return vmx_can_use_ipiv_pi(kvm) || vmx_can_use_vtd_pi(kvm);
> }
>
> I don't think I have a strong preference over whether or not to drop
> vmx_can_use_ipiv_pi().  I think it's marginally easier to read with the extra
> helper?

I'd like to add helper without dropping vmx_can_use_ipiv_pi() which 
makes logic clear and independent.

> >   		return;
> >   
> >   	/* Set SN when the vCPU is preempted */
> > @@ -147,7 +152,7 @@ int pi_pre_block(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
> >   	struct pi_desc old, new;
> >   	struct pi_desc *pi_desc = vcpu_to_pi_desc(vcpu);
> >   
> > -	if (!vmx_can_use_vtd_pi(vcpu->kvm))
> > +	if (!(vmx_can_use_ipiv_pi(vcpu->kvm) || vmx_can_use_vtd_pi(vcpu->kvm)))
> >   		return 0;
> >   
> >   	WARN_ON(irqs_disabled());
> > diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/vmx/vmx.c b/arch/x86/kvm/vmx/vmx.c
> > index 5716db9704c0..2e65464d6dee 100644
> > --- a/arch/x86/kvm/vmx/vmx.c
> > +++ b/arch/x86/kvm/vmx/vmx.c
> > @@ -104,6 +104,9 @@ module_param(fasteoi, bool, S_IRUGO);
> >   
> >   module_param(enable_apicv, bool, S_IRUGO);
> >   
> > +bool __read_mostly enable_ipiv = true;
> > +module_param(enable_ipiv, bool, 0444);
> > +
> >   /*
> >    * If nested=1, nested virtualization is supported, i.e., guests may use
> >    * VMX and be a hypervisor for its own guests. If nested=0, guests may not
> > @@ -224,6 +227,11 @@ static const struct {
> >   };
> >   
> >   #define L1D_CACHE_ORDER 4
> > +
> > +/* PID(Posted-Interrupt Descriptor)-pointer table entry is 64-bit long */
> > +#define MAX_PID_TABLE_ORDER get_order(KVM_MAX_VCPU_IDS * sizeof(u64))
> > +#define PID_TABLE_ENTRY_VALID 1
> > +
> >   static void *vmx_l1d_flush_pages;
> >   
> >   static int vmx_setup_l1d_flush(enum vmx_l1d_flush_state l1tf)
> > @@ -2504,7 +2512,7 @@ static __init int setup_vmcs_config(struct vmcs_config *vmcs_conf,
> >   	}
> >   
> >   	if (_cpu_based_exec_control & CPU_BASED_ACTIVATE_TERTIARY_CONTROLS) {
> > -		u64 opt3 = 0;
> > +		u64 opt3 = TERTIARY_EXEC_IPI_VIRT;
> >   		u64 min3 = 0;
> >   
> >   		if (adjust_vmx_controls_64(min3, opt3,
> > @@ -3841,6 +3849,8 @@ static void vmx_update_msr_bitmap_x2apic(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
> >   		vmx_enable_intercept_for_msr(vcpu, X2APIC_MSR(APIC_TMCCT), MSR_TYPE_RW);
> >   		vmx_disable_intercept_for_msr(vcpu, X2APIC_MSR(APIC_EOI), MSR_TYPE_W);
> >   		vmx_disable_intercept_for_msr(vcpu, X2APIC_MSR(APIC_SELF_IPI), MSR_TYPE_W);
> > +		vmx_set_intercept_for_msr(vcpu, X2APIC_MSR(APIC_ICR),
> > +				MSR_TYPE_RW, !enable_ipiv);
> Please align this, e.g.
>
> 		vmx_set_intercept_for_msr(vcpu, X2APIC_MSR(APIC_ICR),
> 					  MSR_TYPE_RW, !enable_ipiv);
>
> though I think I'd actually prefer we do:
>
>
> 		if (enable_ipiv)
> 			vmx_disable_intercept_for_msr(vcpu, X2APIC_MSR(APIC_ICR), MSR_TYPE_RW);
>
> and just let it poke out.  That makes it much more obvious that interception is
> disabled when IPI virtualization is enabled.  Using vmx_set_intercept_for_msr()
> implies that it could go either way, but that's not true as vmx_reset_x2apic_msrs()
> sets the bitmap to intercept all x2APIC MSRs.

Make sense. Will do.