Re: [PATCH] kvm/vmx: EPTP switching test

["Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com>]

On Mon, Nov 16, 2015 at 06:51:06PM +0100, =?UTF-8?q?Radim=20Kr=C4=8Dm=C3=A1=C5=99?= wrote:
> 2015-11-15 18:00+0200, Michael S. Tsirkin:
> > This patch adds a new parameter: eptp_switching_test, which enables
> > 
> > testing EPT switching on VMX if supported by hardware.  All EPT entries
> > are initialized to the same value so this adds no useful functionality
> > by itself, but can be used to test VMFUNC performance, and serve as a
> > basis for future features based on EPTP switching.
> > 
> > Support for nested virt is not enabled.
> > 
> > This was tested using the following code within guest:
> > 	#define VMX_VMFUNC ".byte 0x0f,0x01,0xd4"
> > 	static void vmfunc(unsigned int nr, unsigned int ept)
> > 	{
> > 		asm volatile(VMX_VMFUNC
> > 			     :
> > 			     : "a"(nr), "c"(ept)
> > 			     : "memory");
> > 	}
> > 
> > VMFUNC instruction cost was measured at ~122 cycles.
> > (Note: recent versions of gnu toolchain support
> >  the vmfunc instruction - removing the need for writing
> >  the bytecode manually).
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Michael S. Tsirkin <mst@redhat.com>
> > ---
> > 
> > I think I'd like to put this upstream so future eptp switching work can
> > be implemented on top. Comments?
> 
> I'd wait for the future.  Patch is already on the list so people
> interested in benchmarking VMFUNC can quickly compile a kernel and
> developers will need to overwrite the code anyway.

It'll bitrot though.  But I'll let Paolo decide that.

> (And I think that eptp switching is expected to be used in conjuction
>  with #VE, so it'd then make sense to implement a nop for it as well.)

No idea how would I even test it, so I'm not interested in #VE at this
point.  If you are - go ahead and post a patch for that on top though,
why not.

> > diff --git a/arch/x86/include/asm/vmx.h b/arch/x86/include/asm/vmx.h
> > @@ -3011,6 +3035,7 @@ static __init int setup_vmcs_config(struct vmcs_config *vmcs_conf)
> >  			SECONDARY_EXEC_PAUSE_LOOP_EXITING |
> >  			SECONDARY_EXEC_RDTSCP |
> >  			SECONDARY_EXEC_ENABLE_INVPCID |
> > +			SECONDARY_EXEC_ENABLE_VM_FUNCTIONS |
> 
> The VMFUNC vmexit should be handled to prevent guests from triggering a
> WARN_ON on the host.  (VMFUNC did just #UD before this patch.)

Do you mean VMFUNC other than EPTP switch 0?  True, thanks!

> 
> After that, it's ok for KVM.