From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: References: <20170208080917.24320-1-khuey@kylehuey.com> <20170208080917.24320-9-khuey@kylehuey.com> <6F48D384-B29C-41B4-83F1-B02FC2480205@amacapital.net> From: Andy Lutomirski Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2018 15:58:13 -0700 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH v14 8/9] KVM: x86: virtualize cpuid faulting Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Jim Mattson Cc: Andy Lutomirski , Kyle Huey , Robert O'Callahan , Thomas Gleixner , Ingo Molnar , "H. Peter Anvin" , X86 ML , Paolo Bonzini , =?UTF-8?B?UmFkaW0gS3LEjW3DocWZ?= , Jeff Dike , Richard Weinberger , Alexander Viro , Shuah Khan , Dave Hansen , Borislav Petkov , Peter Zijlstra , Boris Ostrovsky , Len Brown , "Rafael J. Wysocki" , Dmitry Safonov , David Matlack , Nadav Amit , Andi Kleen , LKML , user-mode-linux-devel@lists.sourceforge.net, "open list:USER-MODE LINUX (UML)" , Linux FS Devel , "open list:KERNEL SELFTEST FRAMEWORK" , kvm list List-ID: On Fri, Jul 27, 2018 at 2:30 PM, Jim Mattson wrote: > On Fri, Jul 27, 2018 at 2:05 PM, Andy Lutomirski wrote: >> Does KVM *have* a concept of "maximum non-turbo frequency" of the >> guest that it would make sense to expose here? If so, presumably the >> right solution is to expose it. > > KVM has the concept of a guest's invariant TSC frequency. The Maximum > Non-Turbo Ratio is just some fraction of that. Sadly, the fraction is > 100 MHz, 133.33MHz, or the "scalable bus frequency" from some other > MSR, depending on microarchitecture. Which is problematic, unless KVM wants to start deciding what the base clock is. There's MSR_FSB_FREQ, which is supported on Atom only, IIRC. I really wish Intel would get its act together.