On Fri, 2022-11-25 at 08:12 +0800, Yan Zhao wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 25, 2022 at 08:13:48AM +0800, Huang, Kai wrote:
> > On Tue, 2022-11-22 at 10:10 +0800, Yan Zhao wrote:
> > > Also make enable_mmio_caching to be a per-VM value?
> > > As if the shadow_mmio_value is 0, mmio_caching needs to be disabled.
> >
> > If I recall correctly, Sean said we can disable TDX guests if mmio_caching is
> > disabled (we also will need to change to allow enable_mmio_caching to still be
> > true when mmio_value is 0).
> >
> > SEV_ES has similar logic:
> >
> > void __init sev_hardware_setup(void)
> > {
> >
> > ...
> >
> > /*
> > * SEV-ES requires MMIO caching as KVM doesn't have access to the guest
> > * instruction stream, i.e. can't emulate in response to a #NPF and
> > * instead relies on #NPF(RSVD) being reflected into the guest as #VC
> > * (the guest can then do a #VMGEXIT to request MMIO emulation).
> > */
> > if (!enable_mmio_caching)
> > goto out;
> >
>
> Would enabling mmio caching in per-VM basis be better?
>
We need Paolo/Sean to decide.
The thing is TDX guests always require mmio_caching being enabled. For VMX
guests, normally we will always enable mmio_caching too. So I think per-VM
basis mmio_caching is not that useful.
