From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
        id S1752931AbdLER43 (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
        Tue, 5 Dec 2017 12:56:29 -0500
Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:47334 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com"
        rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
        id S1752151AbdLER4Z (ORCPT <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
        Tue, 5 Dec 2017 12:56:25 -0500
Date: Tue, 5 Dec 2017 18:56:05 +0100
From: Radim Krcmar <rkrcmar@redhat.com>
To: "Natarajan, Janakarajan" <Janakarajan.Natarajan@amd.com>
Cc: Borislav Petkov <bp@suse.de>, Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>,
        kvm@vger.kernel.org, x86@kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
        "H . Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>, Len Brown <len.brown@intel.com>,
        Kyle Huey <me@kylehuey.com>, Kan Liang <Kan.liang@intel.com>,
        Grzegorz Andrejczuk <grzegorz.andrejczuk@intel.com>,
        Tom Lendacky <thomas.lendacky@amd.com>,
        Tony Luck <tony.luck@intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 3/4] Add support for AMD Core Perf Extension in guest
Message-ID: <20171205175604.GA20099@flask>
References: <cover.1509985085.git.Janakarajan.Natarajan@amd.com>
 <5113a9d6e76d2c6050c1fba4007068340321521c.1509985085.git.Janakarajan.Natarajan@amd.com>
 <20171109183425.rhqc5wrltznt5tcf@pd.tnic>
 <07f23e5e-2747-b0bc-1b93-f83f3982649a@amd.com>
 <20171115190755.5n2zskcr2d4bmewp@pd.tnic>
 <c94fbc32-307f-01b9-564d-cfc68c94648a@amd.com>
 <20171116172520.4lgdvpcdxuxenxc7@pd.tnic>
 <2c785f9f-faac-58d5-2efd-3fce80d24c18@amd.com>
 <20171117114445.iv2s7sm2mjqusztx@pd.tnic>
 <8ff957e3-67b7-3986-05ef-3e42bd7143f6@amd.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <8ff957e3-67b7-3986-05ef-3e42bd7143f6@amd.com>
X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.5.16 (mx1.redhat.com [10.5.110.30]); Tue, 05 Dec 2017 17:56:25 +0000 (UTC)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

2017-12-01 13:30-0600, Natarajan, Janakarajan:
> On 11/17/2017 5:44 AM, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> > On Thu, Nov 16, 2017 at 12:00:11PM -0600, Natarajan, Janakarajan wrote:
> > > Ah my apologies. So when the pmu is initialized the cpuid entries
> > > aren't available then.
> > So let's see:
> > 
> > ... kvm_arch_vcpu_create() ->
> > svm_create_vcpu() ->
> > kvm_vcpu_init() ->
> > kvm_arch_vcpu_init() ->
> > 
> > <--- HERE
> > 
> > kvm_pmu_init()
> > 
> > But at HERE in kvm_arch_vcpu_init() right before kvm_pmu_init() we do already query
> > cpuid:
> > 
> > 	vcpu->arch.maxphyaddr = cpuid_query_maxphyaddr(vcpu);
> > 
> > so it's not like we don't know about cpuid leafs at that point. Which
> > would mean that the code can be made to set the CPU family earlier,
> > before kvm_pmu_init() runs so that you have the proper CPU family and
> > thus have this thing properly designed.
> > 
> > Maybe Paolo and Radim have a better suggestion here...
> 
> Paolo, Radim any suggestions about this. I feel that the number of counters
> initialized can be 6

This is the best solution with the current framework.

> and the subsequent code (kvm_pmu_refresh()) takes care of the number of
> counters to be used (4 or 6)
> based on the vcpu family.

Can't we look only at X86_FEATURE_PERFCTR_CORE and completely ignore the
AMD family?
Using the family would bring problems with compatiblity.

Thanks.