Re: [PATCH v4 4/6] KVM: x86/pmu: Re-evaluate Host-Only/Guest-Only on nested SVM transitions

[Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com>]

On Wed, Apr 15, 2026, Jim Mattson wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 15, 2026 at 2:26 PM Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com> wrote:
> > On Thu, Apr 09, 2026, Jim Mattson wrote:
> > > When would we use the deferred version? As far as the Intel PMU is
> > > concerned. there's nothing special about a nested transition.
> >
> > Actually, outside of VMRUN=>#VMEXIT, isn't the deferred version correct?  E.g.
> > when counting instructions, shouldn't WRMSR(EFER) be accounted based on the *old*
> > EFER value, not the new EFER value?
> 
> Unless you can point to documentation stating otherwise, I think this
> needs testing. By analogy with VMRUN and #VMEXIT, accounting should be
> based on the CPU state at instruction retirement.

IMO, VMRUN and #VMEXIT are broken :-)

But yeah, +1 to following what hardware does.  I was thinking we could look at
our KUT and selftests code, but AFAICT all of the precise measurements are
bookended by WRMSRs, so an off-by-one on the frontend would be corrected by the
off-by-one on the backend.