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;
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 4/4] KVM: x86: Expose Architectural LBR CPUID and its
 XSAVES bit
To:     "Xu, Like" <like.xu@intel.com>,
        Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com>
Cc:     Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@redhat.com>,
        Wanpeng Li <wanpengli@tencent.com>,
        Jim Mattson <jmattson@google.com>,
        Joerg Roedel <joro@8bytes.org>, kvm@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Like Xu <like.xu@linux.intel.com>
References: <20210203135714.318356-1-like.xu@linux.intel.com>
 <20210203135714.318356-5-like.xu@linux.intel.com>
 <8321d54b-173b-722b-ddce-df2f9bd7abc4@redhat.com>
 <219d869b-0eeb-9e52-ea99-3444c6ab16a3@intel.com>
 <b73a2945-11b9-38bf-845a-c64e7caa9d2e@intel.com>
 <7698fd6c-94da-e352-193f-e09e002a8961@redhat.com>
 <6f733543-200e-9ddd-240b-1f956a003ed6@intel.com>
From:   Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>
Message-ID: <c3b916c2-5b4e-31d1-b27b-bf71b621bd7b@redhat.com>
Date:   Mon, 8 Feb 2021 11:31:36 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/78.6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <6f733543-200e-9ddd-240b-1f956a003ed6@intel.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Precedence: bulk

On 07/02/21 02:02, Xu, Like wrote:
> On 2021/2/5 19:00, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>> On 05/02/21 09:16, Xu, Like wrote:
>>> Hi Paolo,
>>>
>>> I am wondering if it is acceptable for you to
>>> review the minor Architecture LBR patch set without XSAVES for v5.12 ?
>>>
>>> As far as I know, the guest Arch LBR  can still work without XSAVES 
>>> support.
>>
>> I dopn't think it can work.  You could have two guests on the same 
>> physical CPU and the MSRs would be corrupted if the guests write to 
>> the MSR but they do not enable the LBRs.
>>
>> Paolo
>>
> Neither Arch LBR nor the old version of LBR have this corruption issue,
> and we will not use XSAVES for at least LBR MSRs in the VMX transaction.
> 
> This is because we have reused the LBR save/restore swicth support from the
> host perf mechanism in the legacy LBR support, which will save/restore 
> the LBR
> MSRs of the vcpu (thread) when the vcpu is sched in/out.
> 
> Therefore, if we have two guests on the same physical CPU, the usage of 
> LBR MSRs
> is isolated, and it's also true when we use LBR to trace the hypervisor 
> on the host.
> The same thing happens on the platforms which supports Arch LBR.
> 
> I propose that we don't support using XSAVES to save/restore Arch LRB 
> *in the guest*
> (just like the guest Intel PT), but use the traditional RD/WRMSR, which 
> still works
> like the legacy LBR.

Ok, this makes sense.  I'll review the patches more carefully, looking 
at 5.13 for the target.

Paolo

> Since we already have legacy LBR support, we can add a small amount of 
> effort (just
> two more MSRs emulation and related CPUID exposure) to support Arch LBR 
> w/o XSAVES.
> 
> I estimate that there are many issues we need to address when we 
> supporting guests
> to use xsaves instructions. As a rational choice, we could enable the 
> basic Arch LBR.
> 
> Paolo and Sean, what do you think ?
> 
> ---
> thx, likexu
>