MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20211222133428.59977-1-likexu@tencent.com> <CALMp9eTgO4XuNHwuxWahZc7jQqZ10DchW8xXvecBH2ovGPLU9g@mail.gmail.com>
 <d3a9a73f-cdc2-bce0-55e6-e4c9f5c237de@gmail.com> <CALMp9eTm7R-69p3z9P37yXmD6QpzJhEJO564czqHQtDdCRK-SQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CALMp9eTVjKztZC_11-DZo4MFhpxoVa31=p7Am2LYnEPuYBV8aw@mail.gmail.com>
 <22776732-0698-c61b-78d9-70db7f1b907d@gmail.com> <CALMp9eQQ7SvDNy3iKSrRTn9QUR9h1M-tSnuYO0Y4_-+bgV72sg@mail.gmail.com>
 <bf7fc07f-d49c-1c73-9a31-03585e99ff09@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <bf7fc07f-d49c-1c73-9a31-03585e99ff09@gmail.com>
From:   Jim Mattson <jmattson@google.com>
Date:   Wed, 5 Jan 2022 14:51:44 -0800
Message-ID: <CALMp9eQmO1zS9urH_B8DeoLp30P7Yxxp9qMwavjmoyt_BSC23A@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] KVM: X86: Emulate APERF/MPERF to report actual vCPU frequency
To:     Like Xu <like.xu.linux@gmail.com>
Cc:     Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>,
        Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@redhat.com>,
        Joerg Roedel <joro@8bytes.org>, x86@kernel.org,
        kvm@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        Like Xu <likexu@tencent.com>,
        Dongli Cao <caodongli@kingsoft.com>,
        Li RongQing <lirongqing@baidu.com>,
        Wanpeng Li <wanpengli@tencent.com>,
        "Thomas Gleixner (kernel-recipes.org)" <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        "Borislav Petkov (kernel-recipes.org)" <bp@alien8.de>,
        Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, Dec 30, 2021 at 11:48 PM Like Xu <like.xu.linux@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 31/12/2021 9:29 am, Jim Mattson wrote:

> > At sched-in:
> > 1. Save host APERF/MPERF values from the MSRs.
> > 2. Load the "current" guest APERF/MPERF values into the MSRs (if the
> > vCPU configuration allows for unintercepted reads).
> >
> > At sched-out:
> > 1. Calculate the guest APERF/MPERF deltas for use in step 3.
> > 2. Save the "current" guest APERF/MPERF values.
> > 3. "Restore" the host APERF/MPERF values, but add in the deltas from step 1.
> >
> > Without any writes to IA32_MPERF, I would expect these MSRs to be
> > synchronized across all logical processors, and the proposal above
> > would break that synchronization.

I am learning more about IA32_APERF and IA32_MPERF this year. :-)

My worry above is unfounded. These MSRs only increment in C0, so they
are not likely to be synchronized.

This also raises another issue with your original fast-path
implementation: the host MSRs will continue to count while the guest
is halted. However, the guest MSRs should not count while the guest is
halted.