Re: [PATCH v2 4/7] KVM: SVM: hyper-v: Nested enlightenments in VMCB

From: Vineeth Pillai <viremana@linux.microsoft.com>
To: Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@redhat.com>,
	Lan Tianyu <Tianyu.Lan@microsoft.com>,
	Michael Kelley <mikelley@microsoft.com>,
	Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>,
	Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com>,
	Wanpeng Li <wanpengli@tencent.com>,
	Jim Mattson <jmattson@google.com>, Joerg Roedel <joro@8bytes.org>,
	Wei Liu <wei.liu@kernel.org>,
	Stephen Hemminger <sthemmin@microsoft.com>,
	Haiyang Zhang <haiyangz@microsoft.com>
Cc: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>,
	"K. Y. Srinivasan" <kys@microsoft.com>,
	x86@kernel.org, kvm@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-hyperv@vger.kernel.org,
	viremana@linux.microsoft.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 4/7] KVM: SVM: hyper-v: Nested enlightenments in VMCB
Date: Fri, 16 Apr 2021 13:07:00 -0400	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <4aaab6f9-7785-5c0a-4f9d-f972ec21888b@linux.microsoft.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <87v98m7gi4.fsf@vitty.brq.redhat.com>

On 4/16/2021 4:58 AM, Vitaly Kuznetsov wrote:
>
>> +
>> +#if IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_HYPERV)
>> +struct __packed hv_enlightenments {
>> +	struct __packed hv_enlightenments_control {
>> +		u32 nested_flush_hypercall:1;
>> +		u32 msr_bitmap:1;
>> +		u32 enlightened_npt_tlb: 1;
>> +		u32 reserved:29;
>> +	} hv_enlightenments_control;
>> +	u32 hv_vp_id;
>> +	u64 hv_vm_id;
>> +	u64 partition_assist_page;
>> +	u64 reserved;
>> +};
> Enlightened VMCS seems to have the same part:
>
>          struct {
>                  u32 nested_flush_hypercall:1;
>                  u32 msr_bitmap:1;
>                  u32 reserved:30;
>          }  __packed hv_enlightenments_control;
>          u32 hv_vp_id;
>          u64 hv_vm_id;
>          u64 partition_assist_page;
>
> Would it maybe make sense to unify these two (in case they are the same
> thing in Hyper-V, of course)?
They are very similar but,  the individual bits are a bit different. SVM 
struct has an
additional bit 'enlightened_npt_tlb'. There might be future changes as 
well if new
enlightenments are designed for performance optimization. So I feel, we 
can have
it as separate structs.

>>   
>> +#define VMCB_ALL_CLEAN_MASK (					\
>> +	(1U << VMCB_INTERCEPTS) | (1U << VMCB_PERM_MAP) |	\
>> +	(1U << VMCB_ASID) | (1U << VMCB_INTR) |			\
>> +	(1U << VMCB_NPT) | (1U << VMCB_CR) | (1U << VMCB_DR) |	\
>> +	(1U << VMCB_DT) | (1U << VMCB_SEG) | (1U << VMCB_CR2) |	\
>> +	(1U << VMCB_LBR) | (1U << VMCB_AVIC)			\
>> +	)
> What if we preserve VMCB_DIRTY_MAX and drop this newly introduced
> VMCB_ALL_CLEAN_MASK (which basically lists all the members of the enum
> above)? '1 << VMCB_DIRTY_MAX' can still work. (If the 'VMCB_DIRTY_MAX'
> name becomes misleading we can e.g. rename it to VMCB_NATIVE_DIRTY_MAX
> or something but I'm not sure it's worth it)

I thought of keeping this code because, if we have non-contiguous bits 
in future, we
would need this kinda logic anyways. But I get your point. Will revert this.

>
>> +#if IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_HYPERV)
>> +#define VMCB_HYPERV_CLEAN_MASK (1U << VMCB_HV_NESTED_ENLIGHTENMENTS)
>> +#endif
> VMCB_HYPERV_CLEAN_MASK is a single bit, why do we need it at all
> (BIT(VMCB_HV_NESTED_ENLIGHTENMENTS) is not super long)

Agreed. Will change it in next revision.

Thanks,
Vineeth