Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Message-ID: <b9ee5f62e904a690d7e2d8837ade8ece7e24a359.camel@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 11/12] KVM: SVM: Do not inhibit APICv when x2APIC is
 present
From:   Maxim Levitsky <mlevitsk@redhat.com>
To:     Suravee Suthikulpanit <suravee.suthikulpanit@amd.com>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kvm@vger.kernel.org
Cc:     pbonzini@redhat.com, seanjc@google.com, joro@8bytes.org,
        jon.grimm@amd.com, wei.huang2@amd.com, terry.bowman@amd.com
Date:   Tue, 26 Apr 2022 10:06:46 +0300
In-Reply-To: <01460b72-1189-fef1-9718-816f2f658d42@amd.com>
References: <20220412115822.14351-1-suravee.suthikulpanit@amd.com>
         <20220412115822.14351-12-suravee.suthikulpanit@amd.com>
         <3fd0aabb6288a5703760da854fd6b09a485a2d69.camel@redhat.com>
         <01460b72-1189-fef1-9718-816f2f658d42@amd.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
User-Agent: Evolution 3.36.5 (3.36.5-2.fc32) 
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, 2022-04-26 at 09:25 +0700, Suravee Suthikulpanit wrote:
> Hi Maim,
> 
> On 4/19/22 8:29 PM, Maxim Levitsky wrote:
> > On Tue, 2022-04-12 at 06:58 -0500, Suravee Suthikulpanit wrote:
> > 
> > Hi!
> > 
> > 
> > I just got an idea, while writing a kvm selftest that would use AVIC,
> > and finding out that selftest code uploads the '-host' cpuid right away
> > which has x2apic enabled and that inhibits AVIC, and later clearing x2apic
> > in the cpuid doesn't un-inhibit it.
> >   
> > That can be fixed in few ways but that got me thinking:
> >   
> > Why do we inhibit AVIC when the guest uses x2apic, even without X2AVIC?
> > I think that if we didn't it would just work, and even work faster than
> > pure software x2apic.
> >   
> > My thinking is:
> >   
> > - when a vcpu itself uses its x2apic, even if its avic is not inhibited,
> > the guest will write x2apic msrs which kvm intercepts and will correctly emulate a proper x2apic.
> >   
> > - vcpu peers will also use x2apic msrs and again it will work correctly
> > (even when there are more than 256 vcpus).
> >   
> > - and the host + iommu will still be able to use AVIC's doorbell to send interrupts to the guest
> > and that doesn't need apic ids or anything, it should work just fine.
> > 
> > Also AVIC should have no issues scanning IRR and injecting interrupts on VM entry,
> > x2apic mode doesn't matter for that.
> >   
> > AVIC mmio can still be though discovered by the guest which is technically against x86 spec
> > (in x2apic mode, mmio supposed to not work) but that can be fixed easily by disabing
> > the AVIC memslot if any of the vCPUs are in x2apic mode, or this can be ignored since
> > it should not cause any issues.
> > We seem to have a quirk for that KVM_X86_QUIRK_LAPIC_MMIO_HOLE.
> >   
> > On top of all this, removing this inhibit will also allow to test AVIC with guest
> > which does have x2apic in the CPUID but doesn't use it (e.g kvm unit test, or
> > linux booted with nox2apic, which is also nice IMHO)
> >   
> > What do you think?
> 
> This is actually a good idea!!! Let's call it hybrid-x2AVIC :)
> 
> I am working on prototype and test out the support for this, which will be introduced in V3.

Thanks! 

Best regards,
	Maxim Levitsky

> 
> Regards,
> Suravee
>