On Mon, Jan 29, 2024, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> On 1/24/24 23:51, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> > > If we follow the suggestion by removing the initial value at vCPU
> > > creation time, then I think it breaks the existing VMM code, since that
> > > requires VMM to explicitly set the MSR, which I am not sure we do today.
> > Yeah, I'm hoping we can squeak by without breaking existing setups.
> >
> > I'm 99% certain QEMU is ok, as QEMU has explicitly set MSR_IA32_PERF_CAPABILITIES
> > since support for PDCM/PERF_CAPABILITIES was added by commit ea39f9b643
> > ("target/i386: define a new MSR based feature word - FEAT_PERF_CAPABILITIES").
> >
> > Frankly, if our VMM doesn't do the same, then it's wildly busted. Relying on
> > KVM to define the vCPU is irresponsible, to put it nicely.
>
> Yes, I tend to agree.
Discussed with Sean offline. Yes, I also agree that this should be
handled at VMM level. MSR_IA32_PERF_CAPABILITIES should be regarded as
part of the CPUID, or sort of. The diff is that its own
"KVM_GET_SUPPORTED_CPUID" (ie., the default value) should come from
KVM_GET_MSRS of the device ioctl.
Providing the default value for MSR_IA32_PERF_CAPABILITIES is really
making things messed. KVM has to always guard access to the cached guest
value with the checking of X86_FEATURE_PDCM. I believe
guest_cpuid_has(vcpu, X86_FEATURE_PDCM) will take runtime cost.
>
> What QEMU does goes from the squeaky clean to the very debatable depending
> on the parameters you give it.
>
> With "-cpu Haswell" and similar, it will provide values for all CPUID and
> MSR bits that match as much as possible values from an actual CPU model. It
> will complain if there are some values that do not match[1].
>
> With "-cpu host", it will copy values from KVM_GET_SUPPORTED_CPUID and from
> the feature MSRs, but only for features that it knows about.
>
> With "-cpu host,migratable=no", it will copy values from
> KVM_GET_SUPPORTED_CPUID and from the feature MSRs, but only for *feature
> words* (CPUID registers, or MSRs) that it knows about. This is where it
> becomes debatable, because a CPUID bit could be added without QEMU knowing
> the corresponding MSR. In this case, the user probably expects the MSR to
> have a nonzero. On one hand I agree that it would be irresponsible, on the
> other hand that's the point of "-cpu host,migratable=no".
>
> If you want to proceed with the change, I don't have any problem with
> considering it a QEMU bug that it doesn't copy over to the guest any unknown
> leaves or MSRs.
>
reply from another thread: CrosVM issue is not related to this one. It
might have something to do with KVM_GET_MSR_INDEX_LIST. I will come up
details later.
> Paolo
>
> [1] Unfortunately it's not fatal because there are way way too many models,
> and also because until recently TCG lacked AVX---and therefore could only
> emulate completely some very old CPU models. But with "-cpu
> Haswell,enforce" then everything's clean.
>
