> -----Original Message-----
> From: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Saturday, May 21, 2022 12:32 AM
> To: Xu, Yanfei <yanfei.xu@xxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: pbonzini@xxxxxxxxxx; vkuznets@xxxxxxxxxx; wanpengli@xxxxxxxxxxx;
> jmattson@xxxxxxxxxx; joro@xxxxxxxxxx; tglx@xxxxxxxxxxxxx;
> mingo@xxxxxxxxxx; bp@xxxxxxxxx; dave.hansen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx;
> x86@xxxxxxxxxx; kvm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Wang,
> Wei W <wei.w.wang@xxxxxxxxx>; Liang, Kan <kan.liang@xxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: Re: [PATCH] KVM: x86: Fix the intel_pt PMI handling wrongly considered
> from guest
>
> Please don't top-post.
Got it, just correctly configured my mailbox with prefix each line of original message.
>
> On Fri, May 20, 2022, Xu, Yanfei wrote:
> > From: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@xxxxxxxxxx> On Mon, May 16, 2022,
> > Yanfei Xu wrote:
> > > diff --git a/arch/x86/include/asm/kvm_host.h
> > > b/arch/x86/include/asm/kvm_host.h index 4ff36610af6a..308cf19f123d
> > > 100644
> > > --- a/arch/x86/include/asm/kvm_host.h
> > > +++ b/arch/x86/include/asm/kvm_host.h
> > > @@ -1582,8 +1582,14 @@ static inline int
> kvm_arch_flush_remote_tlb(struct kvm *kvm)
> > > return -ENOTSUPP;
> > > }
> > >
> > > +enum kvm_intr_type {
> > > + /* Values are arbitrary, but must be non-zero. */
> > > + KVM_HANDLING_IRQ = 1,
> > > + KVM_HANDLING_NMI,
> > > +};
> > > +
> > > #define kvm_arch_pmi_in_guest(vcpu) \
> > > - ((vcpu) && (vcpu)->arch.handling_intr_from_guest)
> > > + ((vcpu) && (vcpu)->arch.handling_intr_from_guest ==
> > > +KVM_HANDLING_NMI)
> >
> > My understanding is that this isn't correct as a general change, as
> > perf events can use regular IRQs in some cases. See commit dd60d217062f4
> ("KVM:
> > x86: Fix perf timer mode IP reporting").
> >
> > I assume there's got to be a way to know which mode perf is using,
> > e.g. we should be able to make this look something like:
> >
> > ((vcpu) && (vcpu)->arch.handling_intr_from_guest == kvm_pmi_vector)
>
> > Hi Sean,
> > You are right, the change of kvm_arch_pmi_in_guest is incorrect, because it
> should cover two cases of PMI.
> > For the PMI of intel pt, it certainly is the NMI PMI. So how about fixing it like
> below?
>
> Yep, that works. I did enough spelunking to figure out how we can fix the
> generic issue, but it's per-event and requires a decent amount of plumbing in
> perf.
Agree, it's per-event for the generic issue...
>
> perf_guest_handle_intel_pt_intr() doesn't bother with perf_guest_state() since
> it's such a specialized event, so fixing this in vmx_handle_intel_pt_intr() would
> likely be the long-term solution even if/when the generic case is fixed.
Will send the v2.
Thanks,
Yanfei
