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;
Date:   Mon, 23 Sep 2019 14:24:35 -0700
From:   Sean Christopherson <sean.j.christopherson@intel.com>
To:     Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@redhat.com>
Cc:     Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>,
        Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@redhat.com>,
        "Dr. David Alan Gilbert" <dgilbert@redhat.com>,
        Marcelo Tosatti <mtosatti@redhat.com>,
        Peter Xu <peterx@redhat.com>, kvm@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 15/17] KVM: retpolines: x86: eliminate retpoline from
 vmx.c exit handlers
Message-ID: <20190923212435.GO18195@linux.intel.com>
References: <20190920212509.2578-1-aarcange@redhat.com>
 <20190920212509.2578-16-aarcange@redhat.com>
 <87o8zb8ik1.fsf@vitty.brq.redhat.com>
 <7329012d-0b3b-ce86-f58d-3d2d5dc5a790@redhat.com>
 <20190923190514.GB19996@redhat.com>
 <20190923202349.GL18195@linux.intel.com>
 <20190923210838.GA23063@redhat.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20190923210838.GA23063@redhat.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, Sep 23, 2019 at 05:08:38PM -0400, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
> Hello,
> 
> On Mon, Sep 23, 2019 at 01:23:49PM -0700, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> > The attached patch should do the trick.
> 
> The two most attractive options to me remains what I already have
> implemented under #ifdef CONFIG_RETPOLINE with direct calls
> (optionally replacing the "if" with a small "switch" still under
> CONFIG_RETPOLINE if we give up the prioritization of the checks), or
> the replacement of kvm_vmx_exit_handlers with a switch() as suggested
> by Vitaly which would cleanup some code.
> 
> The intermediate solution that makes "const" work, has the cons of
> forcing to parse EXIT_REASON_VMCLEAR and the other vmx exit reasons
> twice, first through a pointer to function (or another if or switch
> statement) then with a second switch() statement.
> 
> If we'd use a single switch statement per Vitaly's suggestion, the "if
> nested" would better be more simply implemented as:
> 
> 	switch (exit_reason) {
> 		case EXIT_REASON_VMCLEAR:
> 			if (nested)
> 				return handle_vmclear(vcpu);
> 			else
> 				return handle_vmx_instruction(vcpu);
> 		case EXIT_REASON_VMCLEAR:
> 			if (nested)
> 		[..]

Combing if/case statements would mitigate this to some degree, e.g.:

	if (exit_reason >= EXIT_REASON_VMCALL &&
	    exit_reason <= EXIT_REASON_VMON)
		return handle_vmx_instruction(vcpu);

or

	case EXIT_REASON_VMCALL ... EXIT_REASON_VMON:
		return handle_vmx_instruction(vcpu);

> This also removes the compiler dependency to auto inline
> handle_vmclear in the added nested_vmx_handle_vmx_instruction extern
> call.

I like the idea of routing through handle_vmx_instruction() because it
allows the individual handlers to be wholly encapsulated in nested.c,
e.g. handle_vmclear() and company don't have to be exposed.

An extra CALL+RET isn't going to be noticeable, especially on modern
hardware as the high frequency VMWRITE/VMREAD fields should hit the
shadow VMCS.

> VMREAD/WRITE/RESUME are the most frequent vmexit in l0 while nested
> runs in l2.
> 
> Thanks,
> Andrea