Re: [PATCH] KVM: x86: expose CPUID 0xC000_0000 for Zhaoxin "Shanghai" vendor

[Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com>]

On Wed, Aug 13, 2025, Ewan Hai wrote:
> 
> 
> On 8/12/25 11:07, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> > On Sun, Aug 10, 2025, Ewan Hai wrote:
> > > rename the local constant CENTAUR_CPUID_SIGNATURE to ZHAOXIN_CPUID_SIGNATURE.
> > Why?  I'm not inclined to rename any of the Centaur references, as I don't see
> > any point in effectively rewriting history.  If we elect to rename things, then
> > it needs to be done in a separate patch, there needs to be proper justification,
> > and _all_ references should be converted, e.g. converting just this one macro
> > creates discrepancies even with cpuid.c, as there are multiple comments that
> > specifically talk about Centaur CPUID leaves.
> > 
> Okay, it seems I oversimplified the situation.
> 
> My initial thought was that, since there will no longer be separate handling for
> "Centaurhauls," nearly all new software and hardware features will be applied to
> both "Centaurhauls" and "  Shanghai  " vendors in parallel. This would gradually
> lead to more and more occurrences of if (vendor == centaur || vendor ==
> shanghai) in the kernel code. In that case, introducing an is_zhaoxin_vendor()
> helper could significantly reduce the number of repetitive if (xx || yy) checks.
> 
> However, it appears that this "duplication issue" is not a real concern for now.
> We can revisit it later when it becomes a practical problem.
> 
> For the current matter, there are two possible approaches. Which one do you
> prefer? Or, if you have other suggestions, please let me know and I will
> incorporate your recommendation into the v2 patch.
> 
> ## Version 1 ##
> --- a/arch/x86/kvm/cpuid.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/kvm/cpuid.c
> @@ -1820,7 +1820,8 @@ static int get_cpuid_func(struct kvm_cpuid_array *array, u32 func,
>         int r;
> 
>         if (func == CENTAUR_CPUID_SIGNATURE &&
> -           boot_cpu_data.x86_vendor != X86_VENDOR_CENTAUR)
> +           boot_cpu_data.x86_vendor != X86_VENDOR_CENTAUR &&
> +           boot_cpu_data.x86_vendor != X86_VENDOR_ZHAOXIN)
>                 return 0;
> 
>         r = do_cpuid_func(array, func, type);

This version, please.  As you note above, if we need to tweak things in the future
to dedup code, then I'm happy to do so.  But for now, I don't think KVM needs to
do anything more than add X86_VENDOR_ZHAOXIN to the set of compatible vendor.