From: Yan Zhao <yan.y.zhao@intel.com>
To: Robert Hoo <robert.hoo.linux@gmail.com>
Cc: <kvm@vger.kernel.org>, <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
<pbonzini@redhat.com>, <seanjc@google.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 5/6] KVM: x86: Keep a per-VM MTRR state
Date: Tue, 23 May 2023 14:21:30 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <ZGxbat2mM6AfOOVv@yzhao56-desk.sh.intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <3f09e751-33fd-7d60-78cd-6857d113e8bd@gmail.com>
On Sun, May 21, 2023 at 11:44:36AM +0800, Robert Hoo wrote:
> On 5/9/2023 9:53 PM, Yan Zhao wrote:
> > Keep a per-VM MTRR state and point it to the MTRR state of vCPU 0.
> >
> > This is a preparation patch for KVM to reference a per-VM guest MTRR
> > to decide memory type of EPT leaf entries when noncoherent DMA is present.
> >
> > Though each vCPU has its own MTRR state, MTRR states should be
> > consistent across each VM, which is demanded as in Intel's SDM
> > "In a multiprocessor system using a processor in the P6 family or a more
> > recent family, each processor MUST use the identical MTRR memory map so
> > that software will have a consistent view of memory."
> >
> > Therefore, when memory type of EPT leaf entry needs to honor guest MTRR,
> > a per-VM version of guest MTRR can be referenced.
> >
> > Each vCPU still has its own MTRR state field to keep guest rdmsr()
> > returning the right value when there's lag of MTRR update for each vCPU.
> >
> Can we get rid of per-vCPU MTRR state copies and just have this per-VM state
> only? therefore can simplify implementation and avoid hazard of
> inconsistency among per-VPU MTRR states.
>
> I see in SDM, it notes:
> "In multiple processor systems, the operating system must maintain MTRR
> consistency between all the processors in the system (that is, all
> processors must use the same MTRR values). The P6 and more recent processor
> families provide no hardware support for maintaining this consistency."
>
> leaving each vCPU's MTRR is just to fully mimic HW?
>
Yes, leaving each vCPU's MTRR to mimic HW.
As also suggested in SDM, the guest OS manipulates MTRRs in this way:
for each online CPUs {
disable MTRR
update fixed/var MTRR ranges
enable MTRR
}
Guest OS needs to access memory only after this full pattern.
So, I think there should not have "hazard of inconsistency among per-VPU MTRR
states".
I want to have per-VM MTRR state is because I want to reduce unnessary EPT
zap, which costs quite a lot cpu cycles even when the EPT is empty.
In this patch, per-VM MTRR pointer is used to point to vCPU 0's MTRR state,
so that it can save some memory to keep the MTRR state.
But I found out that it would only work when vCPU 0 (boot processor) is
always online (which is not true for x86 under some configration).
I'll try to find out lowest online vCPU and keep a per-VM copy of MTRR state
in next version.
Thanks!
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2023-05-23 6:51 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 41+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2023-05-09 13:48 [PATCH v2 0/6] KVM: x86/mmu: refine memtype related mmu zap Yan Zhao
2023-05-09 13:50 ` [PATCH v2 1/6] KVM: x86/mmu: add a new mmu zap helper to indicate memtype changes Yan Zhao
2023-05-10 5:30 ` Chao Gao
2023-05-10 8:06 ` Yan Zhao
2023-05-23 22:51 ` Sean Christopherson
2023-05-24 2:22 ` Yan Zhao
2023-05-24 14:50 ` Sean Christopherson
2023-05-25 10:14 ` Yan Zhao
2023-05-25 15:54 ` Sean Christopherson
2023-05-30 1:32 ` Yan Zhao
2023-05-30 9:48 ` Yan Zhao
2023-05-30 23:51 ` Sean Christopherson
2023-05-31 0:18 ` Yan Zhao
2023-05-09 13:51 ` [PATCH v2 2/6] KVM: x86/mmu: only zap EPT when guest CR0_CD changes Yan Zhao
2023-05-09 13:51 ` [PATCH v2 3/6] KVM: x86/mmu: only zap EPT when guest MTRR changes Yan Zhao
2023-05-10 5:39 ` Chao Gao
2023-05-10 8:00 ` Yan Zhao
2023-05-10 10:54 ` Huang, Kai
2023-05-11 0:15 ` Yan Zhao
2023-05-11 2:42 ` Huang, Kai
2023-05-11 2:31 ` Yan Zhao
2023-05-11 3:05 ` Huang, Kai
2023-05-09 13:52 ` [PATCH v2 4/6] KVM: x86/mmu: Zap all EPT leaf entries according noncoherent DMA count Yan Zhao
2023-05-09 13:53 ` [PATCH v2 5/6] KVM: x86: Keep a per-VM MTRR state Yan Zhao
2023-05-10 17:23 ` David Matlack
2023-05-21 3:44 ` Robert Hoo
2023-05-23 6:21 ` Yan Zhao [this message]
2023-05-24 0:13 ` Sean Christopherson
2023-05-24 11:03 ` Yan Zhao
2023-05-24 18:21 ` Sean Christopherson
2023-05-25 10:09 ` Yan Zhao
2023-05-25 14:53 ` Sean Christopherson
2023-05-26 7:54 ` Yan Zhao
2023-05-26 16:09 ` Sean Christopherson
2023-05-30 1:19 ` Yan Zhao
2023-05-25 7:21 ` Robert Hoo
2023-05-25 15:00 ` Sean Christopherson
2023-05-26 1:49 ` Robert Hoo
2023-05-09 13:53 ` [PATCH v2 6/6] KVM: x86/mmu: use per-VM based MTRR for EPT Yan Zhao
2023-05-24 0:15 ` [PATCH v2 0/6] KVM: x86/mmu: refine memtype related mmu zap Sean Christopherson
2023-05-24 11:04 ` Yan Zhao
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=ZGxbat2mM6AfOOVv@yzhao56-desk.sh.intel.com \
--to=yan.y.zhao@intel.com \
--cc=kvm@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=pbonzini@redhat.com \
--cc=robert.hoo.linux@gmail.com \
--cc=seanjc@google.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®