Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-141515-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 139.178.88.99 as permitted sender) client-ip=139.178.88.99;
Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2024 12:11:46 -0700
In-Reply-To: <bd8e7f8b-532f-4372-a3fd-69893e359b42@redhat.com>
Precedence: bulk
Mime-Version: 1.0
References: <20240411163130.1809713-1-seanjc@google.com> <bd8e7f8b-532f-4372-a3fd-69893e359b42@redhat.com>
Message-ID: <Zhg18kSHFeWN1xJH@google.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] KVM: x86: Advertise PCID based on hardware support
 (with an asterisk)
From: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com>
To: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>, 
	Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com>, x86@kernel.org, 
	Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org>, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, 
	kvm@vger.kernel.org, Michael Kelley <mhklinux@outlook.com>, 
	Pawan Gupta <pawan.kumar.gupta@linux.intel.com>, 
	Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@citrix.com>, Xi Ruoyao <xry111@xry111.site>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

On Thu, Apr 11, 2024, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> On 4/11/24 18:31, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> > Force set a synthetic feature, GUEST_PCID, if PCID can be safely used in
> > virtual machines, even if the kernel itself disables PCID support, and
> > advertise PCID support in KVM if GUEST_PCID is set.
> > 
> > When running on a CPU that is affected by Intel's "Global INVLPG" erratum,
> > which does NOT affect VMX non-root mode, it is safe to virtualize PCID for
> > KVM guests, even though it is not safe for the kernel itself to enable PCID.
> > Ditto for if the kernel disables PCID because CR4.PGE isn't supported.
> 
> But the guest would not use it if the f/m/s matches, right?

Maybe?  There's another in-flight patch for dealing with the guest side of
things.

https://lore.kernel.org/all/20240411144322.14585-2-xry111@xry111.site

> If the advantage is basically not splitting the migration pool, is that a
> concern for the affected Alder Lake/Gracemont/Raptor Lake processors?

I have put _zero_ thought into what value this actually adds (another reason I
tagged it RFC).  This was purely a "it's easy, so why not".