Re: [PATCH 4/4] KVM: hyper-v: Advertise support for fast XMM hypercalls

Wei Liu
2021-04-08T15:44:54Z

On Thu, Apr 08, 2021 at 04:20:54PM +0200, Siddharth Chandrasekaran wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 08, 2021 at 02:05:53PM +0200, Vitaly Kuznetsov wrote:
> > Siddharth Chandrasekaran <sidcha@amazon.de> writes:
> >
> > > Now that all extant hypercalls that can use XMM registers (based on
> > > spec) for input/outputs are patched to support them, we can start
> > > advertising this feature to guests.
> > >
> > > Cc: Alexander Graf <graf@amazon.com>
> > > Cc: Evgeny Iakovlev <eyakovl@amazon.de>
> > > Signed-off-by: Siddharth Chandrasekaran <sidcha@amazon.de>
> > > ---
> > > arch/x86/include/asm/hyperv-tlfs.h | 4 ++--
> > > arch/x86/kvm/hyperv.c | 1 +
> > > 2 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/arch/x86/include/asm/hyperv-tlfs.h b/arch/x86/include/asm/hyperv-tlfs.h
> > > index e6cd3fee562b..1f160ef60509 100644
> > > --- a/arch/x86/include/asm/hyperv-tlfs.h
> > > +++ b/arch/x86/include/asm/hyperv-tlfs.h
> > > @@ -49,10 +49,10 @@
> > > /* Support for physical CPU dynamic partitioning events is available*/
> > > #define HV_X64_CPU_DYNAMIC_PARTITIONING_AVAILABLE BIT(3)
> > > /*
> > > - * Support for passing hypercall input parameter block via XMM
> > > + * Support for passing hypercall input and output parameter block via XMM
> > > * registers is available
> > > */
> > > -#define HV_X64_HYPERCALL_PARAMS_XMM_AVAILABLE BIT(4)
> > > +#define HV_X64_HYPERCALL_PARAMS_XMM_AVAILABLE BIT(4) | BIT(15)
> >
> > TLFS 6.0b states that there are two distinct bits for input and output:
> >
> > CPUID Leaf 0x40000003.EDX:
> > Bit 4: support for passing hypercall input via XMM registers is available.
> > Bit 15: support for returning hypercall output via XMM registers is available.
> >
> > and HV_X64_HYPERCALL_PARAMS_XMM_AVAILABLE is not currently used
> > anywhere, I'd suggest we just rename
> >
> > HV_X64_HYPERCALL_PARAMS_XMM_AVAILABLE to HV_X64_HYPERCALL_XMM_INPUT_AVAILABLE
> > and add HV_X64_HYPERCALL_XMM_OUTPUT_AVAILABLE (bit 15).
>
> That is how I had it initially; but then noticed that we would never
> need to use either of them separately. So it seemed like a reasonable
> abstraction to put them together.
>

They are two separate things in TLFS. Please use two macros here.

Wei.