public inbox for linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Ravi Bangoria <ravi.bangoria@amd.com>
To: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com>
Cc: pbonzini@redhat.com, thomas.lendacky@amd.com, tglx@linutronix.de,
	mingo@redhat.com, bp@alien8.de, dave.hansen@linux.intel.com,
	x86@kernel.org, hpa@zytor.com, michael.roth@amd.com,
	nikunj.dadhania@amd.com, kvm@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, santosh.shukla@amd.com,
	Ravi Bangoria <ravi.bangoria@amd.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] KVM: SEV-ES: Don't intercept MSR_IA32_DEBUGCTLMSR for SEV-ES guests
Date: Mon, 20 May 2024 10:34:41 +0530	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <b66ea07a-f57e-014c-68b4-729f893c2fbd@amd.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <ZkdqW8JGCrUUO3RA@google.com>

On 17-May-24 8:01 PM, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> On Fri, May 17, 2024, Ravi Bangoria wrote:
>> On 08-May-24 12:37 AM, Sean Christopherson wrote:
>>> So unless I'm missing something, the only reason to ever disable LBRV would be
>>> for performance reasons.  Indeed the original commits more or less says as much:
>>>
>>>   commit 24e09cbf480a72f9c952af4ca77b159503dca44b
>>>   Author:     Joerg Roedel <joerg.roedel@amd.com>
>>>   AuthorDate: Wed Feb 13 18:58:47 2008 +0100
>>>
>>>     KVM: SVM: enable LBR virtualization
>>>     
>>>     This patch implements the Last Branch Record Virtualization (LBRV) feature of
>>>     the AMD Barcelona and Phenom processors into the kvm-amd module. It will only
>>>     be enabled if the guest enables last branch recording in the DEBUG_CTL MSR. So
>>>     there is no increased world switch overhead when the guest doesn't use these
>>>     MSRs.
>>>
>>> but what it _doesn't_ say is what the world switch overhead is when LBRV is
>>> enabled.  If the overhead is small, e.g. 20 cycles?, then I see no reason to
>>> keep the dynamically toggling.
>>>
>>> And if we ditch the dynamic toggling, then this patch is unnecessary to fix the
>>> LBRV issue.  It _is_ necessary to actually let the guest use the LBRs, but that's
>>> a wildly different changelog and justification.
>>
>> The overhead might be less for legacy LBR. But upcoming hw also supports
>> LBR Stack Virtualization[1]. LBR Stack has total 34 MSRs (two control and
>> 16*2 stack). Also, Legacy and Stack LBR virtualization both are controlled
>> through the same VMCB bit. So I think I still need to keep the dynamic
>> toggling for LBR Stack virtualization.
> 
> Please get performance number so that we can make an informed decision.  I don't
> want to carry complexity because we _think_ the overhead would be too high.

LBR Virtualization overhead for guest entry + exit roundtrip is ~450 cycles* on
a Genoa machine. Also, LBR MSRs (except MSR_AMD_DBG_EXTN_CFG) are of swap type
C so this overhead is only for guest MSR save/restore.

* The overhead was measured using instrumentation code, it's not an official
  number provided by hw folks.

Thanks,
Ravi

  reply	other threads:[~2024-05-20  5:04 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 16+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2024-04-16  5:03 [PATCH v2] KVM: SEV-ES: Don't intercept MSR_IA32_DEBUGCTLMSR for SEV-ES guests Ravi Bangoria
2024-04-16  8:48 ` Gupta, Pankaj
2024-05-02 23:51 ` Sean Christopherson
2024-05-06  4:49   ` Ravi Bangoria
2024-05-07 19:07     ` Sean Christopherson
2024-05-17  6:18       ` Ravi Bangoria
2024-05-17 14:31         ` Sean Christopherson
2024-05-20  5:04           ` Ravi Bangoria [this message]
2024-05-20  5:06             ` Ravi Bangoria
2024-05-21 20:31             ` Sean Christopherson
2024-05-21 20:47               ` Paolo Bonzini
2024-05-21 22:22                 ` Sean Christopherson
2024-05-22  6:12                   ` Ravi Bangoria
2024-05-22  6:11                 ` Ravi Bangoria
2024-05-22  8:09                   ` Paolo Bonzini
2024-05-22  6:11               ` Ravi Bangoria

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=b66ea07a-f57e-014c-68b4-729f893c2fbd@amd.com \
    --to=ravi.bangoria@amd.com \
    --cc=bp@alien8.de \
    --cc=dave.hansen@linux.intel.com \
    --cc=hpa@zytor.com \
    --cc=kvm@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=michael.roth@amd.com \
    --cc=mingo@redhat.com \
    --cc=nikunj.dadhania@amd.com \
    --cc=pbonzini@redhat.com \
    --cc=santosh.shukla@amd.com \
    --cc=seanjc@google.com \
    --cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
    --cc=thomas.lendacky@amd.com \
    --cc=x86@kernel.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox