RE: [PATCH v1 0/3] Remove the limitation of Intel PT CPUID info

["Kang, Luwei" <luwei.kang@intel.com>]

> > > > > > Hi Eduardo,
> > > > > >     This patch set will remove some limitations of Intel PT
> > > > > > CPUID
> > > information.
> > > > > >     1. The "IP payloads" feature will disable the Intel PT in
> > > > > > guests and it will be
> > > > > coming soon.
> > > > > >     2. To make the live migration safe, we set the Intel PT
> > > > > > CPUID as a constant
> > > > > value(Icelake server CPUID). It will mask off the new feature of Intel PT.
> > > > >
> > > > > Isn't this series doing the opposite of 2?  It replaces all
> > > > > constant CPUID values with kvm_arch_get_supported_cpuid(),
> > > > > making the feature unavailable in migration-safe mode.
> > > >
> > > > Yes, This series will expose all the HW capabilities to KVM guest
> > > > if the Intel PT is supported in the guest.
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Does it mean the plan is to drop intel-pt migration support entirely?
> > > >
> > > > I don't want to drop intel-pt live migration feature. As discussed
> > > > with you before, the Intel PT feature includes some sub-features
> > > > and may be different on each HW platform. Expose all the
> > > > capabilities to the guest can't make live migration safe. Do you
> > > > have any new proposals?
> > >
> > > To support live migration, we need the set of features seen by the
> > > guest be determined only by the input given to QEMU, not host
> > > capabilities.  It can be
> > > via:
> > > (1) explicit "-cpu ...,+feat,feat=..." flags;
> > > (2) through data in the CPU model table; or
> > > (3) by hardcoding the same value for all configurations.
> > >
> > > The current solution is (3).  (2) is probably the best solution,
> > > with the assumption that the host can always emulate features from
> > > an older CPU in a newer CPU.  If there are features that can't be
> > > emulated if migrating to a newer CPU, a more explicit configuration
> > > mechanism (1) might be better, because not being able to migrate a VM to
> newer hardware is inconvenient.
> > >
> > > None of those approaches prevent us from implementing passthrough
> > > mode for "-cpu host".  Wouldn't that be preferred instead of
> > > removing support for live migration?
> >
> > Thanks for the comments and suggestions. I think the newer CPU
> > includes all the features of the older CPU, but no document have such
> > statement. To make sure it can work in all the cases, the solution (1)
> > might be better.
> 
> Maybe (2) is still viable, as long as there are no expectations that features will
> be removed in future hardware.  Compatibility with future hardware in (2) is
> more about convenience, not a hard a requirement.
> 
> In either case, (1) is the building block for making (2) work.
> This means we can start by implementing (1), and see if we can include
> features in new CPU models later.

OK, I will add the new sub-feature of Intel PT base on the solution (1).

Regarding the limitation of IP payload, may I remove this limitation directly because LIP == RIP for most/all real code, and it will be set after ICX CPUs.
[PATCH v1 1/3] i386: Remove the limitation of IP payloads for Intel PT

Thanks,
Luwei Kang

> 
> > The Intel PT virtualization first supported on Icelake and we can use
> > this CPUID as basic CPUID information. Any new feature which supports
> > on the newer CPUs can be added by "-cpu ...,+feat,feat=...". What is
> > your opinion?
> 
> Sounds good to me.  I would also make intel-pt passthrough work if using "-cpu
> host" and/or an explicit "intel-pt-passthrough=on"
> option.
> 
> --
> Eduardo