lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2021]   [Jun]   [23]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH RFC 2/7] kvm: x86: Introduce XFD MSRs as passthrough to guest
From
Date
On 5/24/21 2:43 PM, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 07, 2021, Jing Liu wrote:
>> Passthrough both MSRs to let guest access and write without vmexit.
> Why? Except for read-only MSRs, e.g. MSR_CORE_C1_RES, passthrough MSRs are
> costly to support because KVM must context switch the MSR (which, by the by, is
> completely missing from the patch).
>
> In other words, if these MSRs are full RW passthrough, guests with XFD enabled
> will need to load the guest value on entry, save the guest value on exit, and
> load the host value on exit. That's in the neighborhood of a 40% increase in
> latency for a single VM-Enter/VM-Exit roundtrip (~1500 cycles => >2000 cycles).

I'm not taking a position as to whether these _should_ be passthrough or
not. But, if they are, I don't think you strictly need to do the
RDMSR/WRMSR at VM-Exit time.

Just like the "FPU", XFD isn't be used in normal kernel code. This is
why we can be lazy about FPU state with TIF_NEED_FPU_LOAD. I _suspect_
that some XFD manipulation can be at least deferred to the same place
where the FPU state is manipulated: places like switch_fpu_return() or
kernel_fpu_begin().

Doing that would at least help the fast VM-Exit/VM-Enter paths that
really like TIF_NEED_FPU_LOAD today.

I guess the nasty part is that you actually need to stash the old XFD
MSR value in the vcpu structure and that's not available at
context-switch time. So, maybe this would only allow deferring the
WRMSR. That's better than nothing I guess.

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2021-06-23 19:51    [W:0.137 / U:0.812 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site