Re: MSR access API uses in KVM x86

[Juergen Gross <jgross@suse.com>]

[-- Attachment #1.1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1055 bytes --]

On 22.04.25 16:40, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 21, 2025, Xin Li wrote:
>> It looks to me that MSR access API uses in KVM x86 are NOT consistent;
>> sometimes {wr,rd}msrl() are used and sometimes native_{wr,rd}msrl() are
>> used.
>>
>> Was there a reason that how a generic or native MSR API was chosen?
> 
> I doubt anyone knows for sure; that'd likely require a time travelling device
> and/or telepathic abilities :-)
> 
>> In my opinion KVM should use the native MSR APIs, which can streamline
>> operations and potentially improve performance by avoiding the overhead
>> associated with generic MSR API indirect calls when CONFIG_XEN_PV=y.
> 
> As Jürgen pointed out, they aren't indirect calls.  Though IIUC, there is still
> a direct CALL and thus a RET when PARAVIRT_XXL=Y.
> 
> I agree that using PV APIs in KVM doesn't make much sense, as running KVM in a
> XEN PV guest doesn't seem like something we should optimize for, if it's even
> supported.

Shudder. :-D

No, definitely not supported.


Juergen

[-- Attachment #1.1.2: OpenPGP public key --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-keys, Size: 3743 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 495 bytes --]