Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752682AbdHQOLH (ORCPT ); Thu, 17 Aug 2017 10:11:07 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:37532 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751684AbdHQOLG (ORCPT ); Thu, 17 Aug 2017 10:11:06 -0400 DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mx1.redhat.com DA57E2F0535 Authentication-Results: ext-mx05.extmail.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=redhat.com Authentication-Results: ext-mx05.extmail.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com; spf=fail smtp.mailfrom=rkrcmar@redhat.com Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2017 16:10:55 +0200 From: Radim =?utf-8?B?S3LEjW3DocWZ?= To: Lan Tianyu Cc: pbonzini@redhat.com, tglx@linutronix.de, mingo@redhat.com, hpa@zytor.com, x86@kernel.org, kvm@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] KVM/VMX: Avoid CR3 VMEXIT during guest real mode when "unrestricted guest" is supported. Message-ID: <20170817141055.GD2566@flask> References: <1502848704-7474-1-git-send-email-tianyu.lan@intel.com> <20170816132625.GD5975@flask> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.5.16 (mx1.redhat.com [10.5.110.29]); Thu, 17 Aug 2017 14:11:05 +0000 (UTC) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 2195 Lines: 56 2017-08-17 13:00+0800, Lan Tianyu: > On 2017年08月16日 21:26, Radim Krčmář wrote: > > 2017-08-15 21:58-0400, Lan Tianyu: > >> These CR3 VMEXITs was introduced for platform without "unrestricted guest" > >> support. This is to set ept identity table to guest CR3 in guest real > >> mode because these platforms don't support ept real mode(CR0.PE and CR0.PG > >> must be set to 1). But these VMEXITs is redundant for platforms with > >> "unrestricted guest" support. > >> > >> Signed-off-by: Lan Tianyu > >> --- > >> arch/x86/kvm/vmx.c | 22 +++++++++++++--------- > >> 1 file changed, 13 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-) > >> > >> diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/vmx.c b/arch/x86/kvm/vmx.c > >> @@ -4311,7 +4313,9 @@ static void vmx_set_cr3(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, unsigned long cr3) > >> } > >> > >> vmx_flush_tlb(vcpu); > >> - vmcs_writel(GUEST_CR3, guest_cr3); > >> + > >> + if (!enable_unrestricted_guest || !enable_ept) > >> + vmcs_writel(GUEST_CR3, guest_cr3); > > > > This looks wrong -- it would prevent update GUEST_CR3 outside of > > non-root mode with enable_unrestricted_guest. > > > > OK. Do you mean nest mode? I didn't consider that case. > I thought there were three cases here. > > 1) Shadow page mode(enable_ept=0) > > 2) ept mode without unrestricted guest mode > (ept=1, enable_unrestricted_guest = 0) > > 3) ept mode with unrestricted guest mode > (ept=1, enable_unrestricted_guest = 1) > > From my understanding, only (1) and (2) need to update guest cr3. > If nest mode is still needed to update guest CR3, we can add > is_guest_mode() in the if condition. Other choice is to just ignore > setting guest cr3 for case3. The condition maybe changed to That too, but I was thinking about a more common (3) with enabled paging, where GUEST_CR3 should reflect what the guest wants there. Consider a case where the userspace changed CR3 (e.g. after migration), how would it get propagated to the guest? > if (!(enable_unrestricted_guest && enable_ept)) > vmcs_writel(GUEST_CR3, guest_cr3); It is the same. :) I would think that checking the condition is about as fast as doing the vmcs write, so we don't need to complicate the code.