Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86/kvm/nVMX: tweak shadow fields
To:     Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@redhat.com>,
        Jim Mattson <jmattson@google.com>
Cc:     kvm list <kvm@vger.kernel.org>,
        =?UTF-8?B?UmFkaW0gS3LEjW3DocWZ?= <rkrcmar@redhat.com>,
        Liran Alon <liran.alon@oracle.com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
References: <20181019141603.15995-1-vkuznets@redhat.com>
 <31279dfd-d0a1-3720-46a2-52395a124057@redhat.com>
 <CALMp9eQ4493qH4sA4e5UibaHhatEKnztGNBO2s40jc2jXXCdUQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <87pnvas6kz.fsf@vitty.brq.redhat.com>
From:   Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>
Openpgp: preference=signencrypt
Autocrypt: addr=pbonzini@redhat.com; prefer-encrypt=mutual; keydata=
 xsEhBFRCcBIBDqDGsz4K0zZun3jh+U6Z9wNGLKQ0kSFyjN38gMqU1SfP+TUNQepFHb/Gc0E2
 CxXPkIBTvYY+ZPkoTh5xF9oS1jqI8iRLzouzF8yXs3QjQIZ2SfuCxSVwlV65jotcjD2FTN04
 hVopm9llFijNZpVIOGUTqzM4U55sdsCcZUluWM6x4HSOdw5F5Utxfp1wOjD/v92Lrax0hjiX
 DResHSt48q+8FrZzY+AUbkUS+Jm34qjswdrgsC5uxeVcLkBgWLmov2kMaMROT0YmFY6A3m1S
 P/kXmHDXxhe23gKb3dgwxUTpENDBGcfEzrzilWueOeUWiOcWuFOed/C3SyijBx3Av/lbCsHU
 Vx6pMycNTdzU1BuAroB+Y3mNEuW56Yd44jlInzG2UOwt9XjjdKkJZ1g0P9dwptwLEgTEd3Fo
 UdhAQyRXGYO8oROiuh+RZ1lXp6AQ4ZjoyH8WLfTLf5g1EKCTc4C1sy1vQSdzIRu3rBIjAvnC
 tGZADei1IExLqB3uzXKzZ1BZ+Z8hnt2og9hb7H0y8diYfEk2w3R7wEr+Ehk5NQsT2MPI2QBd
 wEv1/Aj1DgUHZAHzG1QN9S8wNWQ6K9DqHZTBnI1hUlkp22zCSHK/6FwUCuYp1zcAEQEAAc0f
 UGFvbG8gQm9uemluaSA8Ym9uemluaUBnbnUub3JnPsLBTQQTAQIAIwUCVEJ7AwIbAwcLCQgH
 AwIBBhUIAgkKCwQWAgMBAh4BAheAAAoJEH4VEAzNNmmxNcwOniaZVLsuy1lW/ntYCA0Caz0i
 sHpmecK8aWlvL9wpQCk4GlOX9L1emyYXZPmzIYB0IRqmSzAlZxi+A2qm9XOxs5gJ2xqMEXX5
 FMtUH3kpkWWJeLqe7z0EoQdUI4EG988uv/tdZyqjUn2XJE+K01x7r3MkUSFz/HZKZiCvYuze
 VlS0NTYdUt5jBXualvAwNKfxEkrxeHjxgdFHjYWhjflahY7TNRmuqPM/Lx7wAuyoDjlYNE40
 Z+Kun4/KjMbjgpcF4Nf3PJQR8qXI6p3so2qsSn91tY7DFSJO6v2HwFJkC2jU95wxfNmTEUZc
 znXahYbVOwCDJRuPrE5GKFd/XJU9u5hNtr/uYipHij01WXal2cce1S5mn1/HuM1yo1u8xdHy
 IupCd57EWI948e8BlhpujUCU2tzOb2iYS0kpmJ9/oLVZrOcSZCcCl2P0AaCAsj59z2kwQS9D
 du0WxUs8waso0Qq6tDEHo8yLCOJDzSz4oojTtWe4zsulVnWV+wu70AioemAT8S6JOtlu60C5
 dHgQUD1Tp+ReXpDKXmjbASJx4otvW0qah3o6JaqO79tbDqIvncu3tewwp6c85uZd48JnIOh3
 utBAu684nJakbbvZUGikJfxd887ATQRUQnHuAQgAx4dxXO6/Zun0eVYOnr5GRl76+2UrAAem
 Vv9Yfn2PbDIbxXqLff7oyVJIkw4WdhQIIvvtu5zH24iYjmdfbg8iWpP7NqxUQRUZJEWbx2CR
 wkMHtOmzQiQ2tSLjKh/cHeyFH68xjeLcinR7jXMrHQK+UCEw6jqi1oeZzGvfmxarUmS0uRuf
 fAb589AJW50kkQK9VD/9QC2FJISSUDnRC0PawGSZDXhmvITJMdD4TjYrePYhSY4uuIV02v02
 8TVAaYbIhxvDY0hUQE4r8ZbGRLn52bEzaIPgl1p/adKfeOUeMReg/CkyzQpmyB1TSk8lDMxQ
 zCYHXAzwnGi8WU9iuE1P0wARAQABwsEzBBgBAgAJBQJUQnHuAhsMAAoJEH4VEAzNNmmxp1EO
 oJy0uZggJm7gZKeJ7iUpeX4eqUtqelUw6gU2daz2hE/jsxsTbC/w5piHmk1H1VWDKEM4bQBT
 uiJ0bfo55SWsUNN+c9hhIX+Y8LEe22izK3w7mRpvGcg+/ZRG4DEMHLP6JVsv5GMpoYwYOmHn
 plOzCXHvmdlW0i6SrMsBDl9rw4AtIa6bRwWLim1lQ6EM3PWifPrWSUPrPcw4OLSwFk0CPqC4
 HYv/7ZnASVkR5EERFF3+6iaaVi5OgBd81F1TCvCX2BEyIDRZLJNvX3TOd5FEN+lIrl26xecz
 876SvcOb5SL5SKg9/rCBufdPSjojkGFWGziHiFaYhbuI2E+NfWLJtd+ZvWAAV+O0d8vFFSvr
 iy9enJ8kxJwhC0ECbSKFY+W1eTIhMD3aeAKY90drozWEyHhENf4l/V+Ja5vOnW+gCDQkGt2Y
 1lJAPPSIqZKvHzGShdh8DduC0U3xYkfbGAUvbxeepjgzp0uEnBXfPTy09JGpgWbg0w91GyfT
 /ujKaGd4vxG2Ei+MMNDmS1SMx7wu0evvQ5kT9NPzyq8R2GIhVSiAd2jioGuTjX6AZCFv3ToO
 53DliFMkVTecLptsXaesuUHgL9dKIfvpm+rNXRn9wAwGjk0X/A==
Message-ID: <dd5320d0-7368-e224-9b81-bcf841612ff9@redhat.com>
Date:   Wed, 14 Nov 2018 12:34:36 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/60.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <87pnvas6kz.fsf@vitty.brq.redhat.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On 12/11/2018 15:39, Vitaly Kuznetsov wrote:
>> Is it worth having a set of VMCS shadowing bitmaps per-vCPU, in order
>> to make better use of this feature?
> Per CPU or not, to improve the feature we'll probably need some sort of
> an 'adaptive' algorithm picking which fields to shadow. 

I agree, making it per-VCPU is not useful alone.  The question is to
balance.  The complexity and the number of fields that have to be copied
between the VMCSes.

If a vmexit type is rare, it makes sense not to shadow a field that
would be always defined by that vmexit type, rather than pay a fixed
price (even if it is loop overhead only) on all vmexits; this is the
case VMX_INSTRUCTION_INFO.

One thing that would make sense is to have separate shadow bitmaps for
32- and 64-bit L2.  32-bit L2 probably will need to shadow at least the
segment bases.  But for 64-bit L2, the current set is small and nice.

There are still a few things that can be refined, but it's small things:

1) EXCEPTION_BITMAP which can go because everyone is probably using
eager FPU these days---and has always been if you have shadow VMCS;

2) CR0_READ_SHADOW/CR4_READ_SHADOW/GUEST_CR0/GUEST_CR4 were needed on
old KVM and would need to be tested on other hypervisors, but are
probably unnecessary;

3) I would be surprised if HOST_FS_BASE/HOST_GS_BASE are needed too,
though again you'd need testing on other hypervisors

Overall, I prefer simple code that optimizes the common case very well,
rather than complex code that tries to cover all bases...

Paolo