qemu-devel.nongnu.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Eduardo Habkost <ehabkost@redhat.com>
To: "Strong, Beeman" <beeman.strong@intel.com>
Cc: "pbonzini@redhat.com" <pbonzini@redhat.com>,
	"Kang, Luwei" <luwei.kang@intel.com>,
	"qemu-devel@nongnu.org" <qemu-devel@nongnu.org>,
	"rth@twiddle.net" <rth@twiddle.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 1/3] i386: Remove the limitation of IP payloads for Intel PT
Date: Fri, 25 Sep 2020 12:54:15 -0400	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20200925165415.GT3717385@habkost.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <MW3PR11MB46655375CAECC74BA2D7CAECF2360@MW3PR11MB4665.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>

On Fri, Sep 25, 2020 at 04:42:26PM +0000, Strong, Beeman wrote:
> LIP=0 will differ from LIP=1 behavior only when CSbase is non-zero, which requires 32-bit code.  In that case a LIP=0 implementation will provide only the EIP offset from CSbase in IP packets (like TIP or FUP), while LIP=1 implementation will provide the full LIP (CSbase + EIP offset).
> 

Thanks.  Is it possible to make KVM emulate LIP=0 behavior
correctly on LIP=1 hosts, or vice versa?


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Eduardo Habkost <ehabkost@redhat.com> 
> Sent: Friday, September 25, 2020 9:16 AM
> To: Kang, Luwei <luwei.kang@intel.com>
> Cc: pbonzini@redhat.com; rth@twiddle.net; qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Strong, Beeman <beeman.strong@intel.com>
> Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 1/3] i386: Remove the limitation of IP payloads for Intel PT
> 
> On Tue, Feb 25, 2020 at 05:38:30AM +0800, Luwei Kang wrote:
> > The Intel PT packets which contain IP payloads will have LIP values, 
> > and it will include the CS base component if the 
> > CPUID.(EAX=14H,ECX=0H).ECX.[bit31]
> > is set. But it will disabled the Intel PT in kvm guest because of the 
> > need of live migration safe(c078ca9 i386: Disable Intel PT if packets 
> > IP payloads have LIP values).
> > 
> > This patch will revert the previous limitation because the Intel new 
> > hardware will set this bit and LIP == RIP for most/all real code.
> 
> "works most of the time" might be good enough if it's a conscious user choice, but not for something we might be enabling by default.  Under which conditions this wouldn't work?  Can we detect those conditions somehow?
> 
> To allow live migration between LIP=0 and LIP=1 hosts, we need KVM to be able to properly emulate LIP=0 on LIP=1 hosts.  Does the hardware make this possible?
> 
> If KVM can't emulate LIP=0 on a LIP=1 host, what you can do here is to make the flag configurable and check if the configured value matches the one in the host.  This way we can support both types of hosts, just not allow live migration between them.
> 
> 
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Luwei Kang <luwei.kang@intel.com>
> > ---
> >  target/i386/cpu.c | 5 +----
> >  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 4 deletions(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/target/i386/cpu.c b/target/i386/cpu.c index 
> > 69f518a..8c0d1e4 100644
> > --- a/target/i386/cpu.c
> > +++ b/target/i386/cpu.c
> > @@ -688,8 +688,6 @@ static CPUCacheInfo legacy_l3_cache = {
> >   * bit[02]: Support Single-Range Output scheme;
> >   */
> >  #define INTEL_PT_MINIMAL_ECX     0x7
> > -/* generated packets which contain IP payloads have LIP values */
> > -#define INTEL_PT_IP_LIP          (1 << 31)
> >  #define INTEL_PT_ADDR_RANGES_NUM 0x2 /* Number of configurable 
> > address ranges */  #define INTEL_PT_ADDR_RANGES_NUM_MASK 0x3
> >  #define INTEL_PT_MTC_BITMAP      (0x0249 << 16) /* Support ART(0,3,6,9) */
> > @@ -6281,8 +6279,7 @@ static void x86_cpu_filter_features(X86CPU *cpu, bool verbose)
> >             ((eax_1 & INTEL_PT_ADDR_RANGES_NUM_MASK) <
> >                                             INTEL_PT_ADDR_RANGES_NUM) ||
> >             ((ebx_1 & (INTEL_PT_PSB_BITMAP | INTEL_PT_CYCLE_BITMAP)) !=
> > -                (INTEL_PT_PSB_BITMAP | INTEL_PT_CYCLE_BITMAP)) ||
> > -           (ecx_0 & INTEL_PT_IP_LIP)) {
> > +                (INTEL_PT_PSB_BITMAP | INTEL_PT_CYCLE_BITMAP))) {
> >              /*
> >               * Processor Trace capabilities aren't configurable, so if the
> >               * host can't emulate the capabilities we report on
> > --
> > 1.8.3.1
> > 
> 
> -- 
> Eduardo
> 

-- 
Eduardo



  reply	other threads:[~2020-09-25 16:55 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 27+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2020-02-24 21:38 [PATCH v1 0/3] Remove the limitation of Intel PT CPUID info Luwei Kang
2020-02-24 21:38 ` [PATCH v1 1/3] i386: Remove the limitation of IP payloads for Intel PT Luwei Kang
2020-09-25 16:15   ` Eduardo Habkost
2020-09-25 16:42     ` Strong, Beeman
2020-09-25 16:54       ` Eduardo Habkost [this message]
2020-09-25 20:23         ` Paolo Bonzini
2020-09-25 20:29           ` Eduardo Habkost
2020-09-25 20:40             ` Paolo Bonzini
2020-09-28  5:19               ` Kang, Luwei
2020-09-28  7:35                 ` Paolo Bonzini
2020-09-28 12:42                   ` Kang, Luwei
2020-09-28 14:12                     ` Eduardo Habkost
2020-09-29  2:28                       ` Kang, Luwei
2020-09-29  3:44                         ` Eduardo Habkost
2020-09-28 16:46                     ` Paolo Bonzini
2020-09-29  2:28                       ` Kang, Luwei
2020-02-24 21:38 ` [PATCH v1 2/3] i386: Remove the CPUID limitation of " Luwei Kang
2020-02-24 21:38 ` [PATCH v1 3/3] i386: Mark the 'INTEL_PT' CPUID bit as unmigratable Luwei Kang
2020-03-30  9:56 ` [PATCH v1 0/3] Remove the limitation of Intel PT CPUID info Kang, Luwei
2020-09-18 22:02   ` Eduardo Habkost
2020-09-21  7:49     ` Kang, Luwei
2020-09-21 16:50       ` Eduardo Habkost
2020-09-23  2:52         ` Kang, Luwei
2020-09-23 14:15           ` Eduardo Habkost
2020-09-24 12:47             ` Kang, Luwei
2020-09-24 13:34               ` Eduardo Habkost
2020-09-25  8:20                 ` Kang, Luwei

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=20200925165415.GT3717385@habkost.net \
    --to=ehabkost@redhat.com \
    --cc=beeman.strong@intel.com \
    --cc=luwei.kang@intel.com \
    --cc=pbonzini@redhat.com \
    --cc=qemu-devel@nongnu.org \
    --cc=rth@twiddle.net \
    /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;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).