Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20200623063530.81917-1-like.xu@linux.intel.com>
 <20200623182910.GA24107@linux.intel.com> <CALMp9eQPA40FWBEOiQ8T5JX2fv+uEfU_x6js8WhAguQ8TL6frA@mail.gmail.com>
 <20200623190504.GC24107@linux.intel.com>
In-Reply-To: <20200623190504.GC24107@linux.intel.com>
From:   Jim Mattson <jmattson@google.com>
Date:   Tue, 23 Jun 2020 13:34:19 -0700
Message-ID: <CALMp9eTYKQ3LrWKu32mJKPzkWMcN5tGSFmj352TPCSrSp7jGxw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] KVM: X86: Emulate APERF/MPERF to report actual VCPU frequency
To:     Sean Christopherson <sean.j.christopherson@intel.com>
Cc:     Like Xu <like.xu@linux.intel.com>,
        Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>,
        kvm list <kvm@vger.kernel.org>,
        Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@redhat.com>,
        Wanpeng Li <wanpengli@tencent.com>,
        Joerg Roedel <joro@8bytes.org>, wei.huang2@amd.com,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Li RongQing <lirongqing@baidu.com>,
        Chai Wen <chaiwen@baidu.com>, Jia Lina <jialina01@baidu.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, Jun 23, 2020 at 12:05 PM Sean Christopherson
<sean.j.christopherson@intel.com> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jun 23, 2020 at 11:39:16AM -0700, Jim Mattson wrote:
> > On Tue, Jun 23, 2020 at 11:29 AM Sean Christopherson
> > <sean.j.christopherson@intel.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Tue, Jun 23, 2020 at 02:35:30PM +0800, Like Xu wrote:
> > > > The aperf/mperf are used to report current CPU frequency after 7d5905dc14a
> > > > "x86 / CPU: Always show current CPU frequency in /proc/cpuinfo". But guest
> > > > kernel always reports a fixed VCPU frequency in the /proc/cpuinfo, which
> > > > may confuse users especially when turbo is enabled on the host.
> > > >
> > > > Emulate guest APERF/MPERF capability based their values on the host.
> > > >
> > > > Co-developed-by: Li RongQing <lirongqing@baidu.com>
> > > > Signed-off-by: Li RongQing <lirongqing@baidu.com>
> > > > Reviewed-by: Chai Wen <chaiwen@baidu.com>
> > > > Reviewed-by: Jia Lina <jialina01@baidu.com>
> > > > Signed-off-by: Like Xu <like.xu@linux.intel.com>
> > > > ---
> > >
> > > ...
> > >
> > > > @@ -8312,7 +8376,7 @@ static int vcpu_enter_guest(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
> > > >               dm_request_for_irq_injection(vcpu) &&
> > > >               kvm_cpu_accept_dm_intr(vcpu);
> > > >       fastpath_t exit_fastpath;
> > > > -
> > > > +     u64 enter_mperf = 0, enter_aperf = 0, exit_mperf = 0, exit_aperf = 0;
> > > >       bool req_immediate_exit = false;
> > > >
> > > >       if (kvm_request_pending(vcpu)) {
> > > > @@ -8516,8 +8580,17 @@ static int vcpu_enter_guest(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
> > > >               vcpu->arch.switch_db_regs &= ~KVM_DEBUGREG_RELOAD;
> > > >       }
> > > >
> > > > +     if (unlikely(vcpu->arch.hwp.hw_coord_fb_cap))
> > > > +             get_host_amperf(&enter_mperf, &enter_aperf);
> > > > +
> > > >       exit_fastpath = kvm_x86_ops.run(vcpu);
> > > >
> > > > +     if (unlikely(vcpu->arch.hwp.hw_coord_fb_cap)) {
> > > > +             get_host_amperf(&exit_mperf, &exit_aperf);
> > > > +             vcpu_update_amperf(vcpu, get_amperf_delta(enter_aperf, exit_aperf),
> > > > +                     get_amperf_delta(enter_mperf, exit_mperf));
> > > > +     }
> > > > +
> > >
> > > Is there an alternative approach that doesn't require 4 RDMSRs on every VMX
> > > round trip?  That's literally more expensive than VM-Enter + VM-Exit
> > > combined.
> > >
> > > E.g. what about adding KVM_X86_DISABLE_EXITS_APERF_MPERF and exposing the
> > > MSRs for read when that capability is enabled?
> >
> > When would you load the hardware MSRs with the guest/host values?
>
> Ugh, I was thinking the MSRs were read-only.

EVen if they were read-only, they should power on to zero, and they
will most likely not be zero when a guest powers on.

> Doesn't this also interact with TSC scaling?

Yes, it should!