Re: [PATCH V4 0/4] KVM: x86: Make bus clock frequency for vAPIC timer configurable

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]


Hi Sean,

On 4/24/2024 10:23 AM, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 24, 2024, Rick P Edgecombe wrote:
>> On Wed, 2024-04-24 at 09:13 -0700, Sean Christopherson wrote:
>>> On Tue, Apr 16, 2024, Rick P Edgecombe wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 2024-03-21 at 09:37 -0700, Reinette Chatre wrote:
>>>>> Summary
>>>>> -------
>>>>> Add KVM_CAP_X86_APIC_BUS_FREQUENCY capability to configure the APIC
>>>>> bus clock frequency for APIC timer emulation.
>>>>> frequency in nanoseconds. When using this capability, the user space
>>>>> VMM should configure CPUID leaf 0x15 to advertise the frequency.
>>>> Looks good to me and...
>>>> Tested-by: Rick Edgecombe <rick.p.edgecombe@xxxxxxxxx>
>>>> The only thing missing is actually integrating it into TDX qemu patches and
>>>> testing the resulting TD. I think we are making a fair assumption that the
>>>> problem should be resolved based on the analysis, but we have not actually
>>>> tested that part. Is that right?
>>> Please tell me that Rick is wrong, and that this actually has been tested with
>>> a TDX guest.  I don't care _who_ tested it, or with what VMM it has been
>>> tested, but _someone_ needs to verify that this actually fixes the TDX issue.
>> It is in the process of getting a TDX test developed (or rather updated).
>> Agreed, it requires verification that it fixes the original TDX issue. That is
>> why I raised it.
>> Reinette was working on this internally and some iterations were happening, but
>> we are trying to work on the public list as much as possible per your earlier
>> comments. So that is why she posted it.
> I have no problem posting "early", but Documentation/process/maintainer-kvm-x86.rst
> clearly states under Testing that:
>   If you can't fully test a change, e.g. due to lack of hardware, clearly state
>   what level of testing you were able to do, e.g. in the cover letter.
> I was assuming that this was actually *fully* tested, because nothing suggests
> otherwise.  And _that_ is a problem, e.g. I was planning on applying this series
> for 6.10, which would have made for quite the mess if it turns out that this
> doesn't actually solve the TDX problem.

There was one vote for the capability name to rather be KVM_CAP_X86_APIC_BUS_CYCLES_NS [1] 

I'd be happy to resubmit with the name changed but after reading your statement above it
is not clear to me what name is preferred: KVM_CAP_X86_APIC_BUS_FREQUENCY
as used in this series that seem to meet your approval or KVM_CAP_X86_APIC_BUS_CYCLES_NS.

Please let me know what you prefer.

Thank you.



[Index of Archives]     [KVM ARM]     [KVM ia64]     [KVM ppc]     [Virtualization Tools]     [Spice Development]     [Libvirt]     [Libvirt Users]     [Linux USB Devel]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Yosemite Questions]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]     [XFree86]

  Powered by Linux