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;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20220829100850.1474-1-santosh.shukla@amd.com> <20220829100850.1474-2-santosh.shukla@amd.com>
 <CALMp9eTrz2SkK=CjTSc9NdHvP4qsP+UWukFadbqv+BA+KdtMMg@mail.gmail.com> <a599f0da-3d9b-a37f-af7c-aa1310ed77e1@amd.com>
In-Reply-To: <a599f0da-3d9b-a37f-af7c-aa1310ed77e1@amd.com>
From:   Jim Mattson <jmattson@google.com>
Date:   Thu, 1 Sep 2022 10:43:07 -0700
Message-ID: <CALMp9eT3zHqZhDLKV=5UTnwLsvmbkpqibsh4tjqFnW4+MGR4aw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCHv4 1/8] x86/cpu: Add CPUID feature bit for VNMI
To:     "Shukla, Santosh" <santosh.shukla@amd.com>
Cc:     Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>,
        Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com>,
        Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@redhat.com>,
        Joerg Roedel <joro@8bytes.org>,
        Tom Lendacky <thomas.lendacky@amd.com>, kvm@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, mlevitsk@redhat.com,
        mail@maciej.szmigiero.name
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, Sep 1, 2022 at 5:45 AM Shukla, Santosh <santosh.shukla@amd.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Jim,
>
> On 9/1/2022 5:12 AM, Jim Mattson wrote:
> > On Mon, Aug 29, 2022 at 3:09 AM Santosh Shukla <santosh.shukla@amd.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> VNMI feature allows the hypervisor to inject NMI into the guest w/o
> >> using Event injection mechanism, The benefit of using VNMI over the
> >> event Injection that does not require tracking the Guest's NMI state and
> >> intercepting the IRET for the NMI completion. VNMI achieves that by
> >> exposing 3 capability bits in VMCB intr_cntrl which helps with
> >> virtualizing NMI injection and NMI_Masking.
> >>
> >> The presence of this feature is indicated via the CPUID function
> >> 0x8000000A_EDX[25].
> >>
> >> Reviewed-by: Maxim Levitsky <mlevitsk@redhat.com>
> >> Signed-off-by: Santosh Shukla <santosh.shukla@amd.com>
> >> ---
> >>  arch/x86/include/asm/cpufeatures.h | 1 +
> >>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
> >>
> >> diff --git a/arch/x86/include/asm/cpufeatures.h b/arch/x86/include/asm/cpufeatures.h
> >> index ef4775c6db01..33e3603be09e 100644
> >> --- a/arch/x86/include/asm/cpufeatures.h
> >> +++ b/arch/x86/include/asm/cpufeatures.h
> >> @@ -356,6 +356,7 @@
> >>  #define X86_FEATURE_VGIF               (15*32+16) /* Virtual GIF */
> >>  #define X86_FEATURE_X2AVIC             (15*32+18) /* Virtual x2apic */
> >>  #define X86_FEATURE_V_SPEC_CTRL                (15*32+20) /* Virtual SPEC_CTRL */
> >> +#define X86_FEATURE_V_NMI              (15*32+25) /* Virtual NMI */
> >>  #define X86_FEATURE_SVME_ADDR_CHK      (15*32+28) /* "" SVME addr check */
> >
> > Why is it "V_NMI," but "VGIF"?
> >
> I guess you are asking why I chose V_NMI and not VNMI, right?
> if so then there are two reasons for going with V_NMI - IP bits are named in order
> V_NMI, V_NMI_MASK, and V_NMI_ENABLE style and also Intel already using VNMI (X86_FEATURE_VNMI)

I would argue that inconsistency and arbitrary underscores
unnecessarily increase the cognitive load. It is not immediately
obvious to me that an extra underscore implies AMD. What's wrong with
X86_FEATURE_AMD_VNMI? We already have over half a dozen AMD feature
bits that are distinguished from the Intel version by an AMD prefix.