From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from lists.gnu.org (lists.gnu.org [209.51.188.17]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C4775C25B76 for ; Sat, 1 Jun 2024 15:12:51 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1sDQOa-00024x-9O; Sat, 01 Jun 2024 11:11:48 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1sDQOU-00023q-Tz; Sat, 01 Jun 2024 11:11:42 -0400 Received: from mgamail.intel.com ([192.198.163.7]) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1sDQOS-0003LH-89; Sat, 01 Jun 2024 11:11:42 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=intel.com; i=@intel.com; q=dns/txt; s=Intel; t=1717254700; x=1748790700; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references: mime-version:in-reply-to; bh=iqxY4OA9pDpwm3vLPpCWLZjHd2gPOinMkapeVP844vw=; b=mhH60uBvVPBFNbBmXtKyHp/mxToxHfhPWRJLIUENn/juC4K66AW6556L AVZKet7f6Ig9Pd51yFg9mLR1QTUEduUCbxcuSqIkR1UDu+l7oAQV/A8Bb +XiXzi0Jq4Fry4Z1YC484nNo5/rwH5/fPiq44HI018DAYa13WGiFNH91E P9uP1KTlvu/QFg4nGbQf5kv5YiSpzmDwLqb8rtoT89KYxJTcPNPIf01ax i7a00LhGtbOSNE2jV5r/YhLI1dZJlJf4sz+lI3+rDgddlNl9B0OPyvJ5W pa41bHl03O5563G18Ft1frcRbBddeJU1ljKq3HYEXkcbqadcLYlAAL5Y8 A==; X-CSE-ConnectionGUID: RTLKeMpCSnGbnzPgFMd/Jg== X-CSE-MsgGUID: fEkPzcR8RYKjn2bTjTHZpQ== X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="6600,9927,11090"; a="39196306" X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="6.08,207,1712646000"; d="scan'208";a="39196306" Received: from fmviesa003.fm.intel.com ([10.60.135.143]) by fmvoesa101.fm.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 01 Jun 2024 08:11:32 -0700 X-CSE-ConnectionGUID: CmcTnsCPRKaYFx4ykXE49A== X-CSE-MsgGUID: vhHJoFX2QPuAf7Gy4YnoSg== X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="6.08,207,1712646000"; d="scan'208";a="40881543" Received: from liuzhao-optiplex-7080.sh.intel.com (HELO localhost) ([10.239.160.36]) by fmviesa003.fm.intel.com with ESMTP; 01 Jun 2024 08:11:30 -0700 Date: Sat, 1 Jun 2024 23:26:55 +0800 From: Zhao Liu To: "Chen, Zide" Cc: qemu-devel@nongnu.org, pbonzini@redhat.com, mst@redhat.com, thuth@redhat.com, cfontana@suse.de, xiaoyao.li@intel.com, qemu-trivial@nongnu.org Subject: Re: [PATCH V2 2/3] target/i386: call cpu_exec_realizefn before x86_cpu_filter_features Message-ID: References: <20240524200017.150339-1-zide.chen@intel.com> <20240524200017.150339-3-zide.chen@intel.com> <04d3dfd8-93d2-493d-82d1-8fbcad6ecd22@intel.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <04d3dfd8-93d2-493d-82d1-8fbcad6ecd22@intel.com> Received-SPF: pass client-ip=192.198.163.7; envelope-from=zhao1.liu@intel.com; helo=mgamail.intel.com X-Spam_score_int: -44 X-Spam_score: -4.5 X-Spam_bar: ---- X-Spam_report: (-4.5 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.041, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no X-Spam_action: no action X-BeenThere: qemu-devel@nongnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: qemu-devel-bounces+qemu-devel=archiver.kernel.org@nongnu.org Sender: qemu-devel-bounces+qemu-devel=archiver.kernel.org@nongnu.org On Fri, May 31, 2024 at 10:13:47AM -0700, Chen, Zide wrote: > Date: Fri, 31 May 2024 10:13:47 -0700 > From: "Chen, Zide" > Subject: Re: [PATCH V2 2/3] target/i386: call cpu_exec_realizefn before > x86_cpu_filter_features > > On 5/30/2024 11:30 PM, Zhao Liu wrote: > > Hi Zide, > > > > On Fri, May 24, 2024 at 01:00:16PM -0700, Zide Chen wrote: > >> Date: Fri, 24 May 2024 13:00:16 -0700 > >> From: Zide Chen > >> Subject: [PATCH V2 2/3] target/i386: call cpu_exec_realizefn before > >> x86_cpu_filter_features > >> X-Mailer: git-send-email 2.34.1 > >> > >> cpu_exec_realizefn which calls the accel-specific realizefn may expand > >> features. e.g., some accel-specific options may require extra features > >> to be enabled, and it's appropriate to expand these features in accel- > >> specific realizefn. > >> > >> One such example is the cpu-pm option, which may add CPUID_EXT_MONITOR. > >> > >> Thus, call cpu_exec_realizefn before x86_cpu_filter_features to ensure > >> that it won't expose features not supported by the host. > >> > >> Fixes: 662175b91ff2 ("i386: reorder call to cpu_exec_realizefn") > >> Suggested-by: Xiaoyao Li > >> Signed-off-by: Zide Chen > >> --- > >> target/i386/cpu.c | 24 ++++++++++++------------ > >> target/i386/kvm/kvm-cpu.c | 1 - > >> 2 files changed, 12 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-) > >> > >> diff --git a/target/i386/cpu.c b/target/i386/cpu.c > >> index bc2dceb647fa..a1c1c785bd2f 100644 > >> --- a/target/i386/cpu.c > >> +++ b/target/i386/cpu.c > >> @@ -7604,6 +7604,18 @@ static void x86_cpu_realizefn(DeviceState *dev, Error **errp) > >> } > >> } > >> > >> + /* > >> + * note: the call to the framework needs to happen after feature expansion, > >> + * but before the checks/modifications to ucode_rev, mwait, phys_bits. > >> + * These may be set by the accel-specific code, > >> + * and the results are subsequently checked / assumed in this function. > >> + */ > >> + cpu_exec_realizefn(cs, &local_err); > >> + if (local_err != NULL) { > >> + error_propagate(errp, local_err); > >> + return; > >> + } > >> + > >> x86_cpu_filter_features(cpu, cpu->check_cpuid || cpu->enforce_cpuid); > > > > For your case, which sets cpu-pm=on via overcommit, then > > x86_cpu_filter_features() will complain that mwait is not supported. > > > > Such warning is not necessary, because the purpose of overcommit (from > > code) is only to support mwait when possible, not to commit to support > > mwait in Guest. > > > > Additionally, I understand x86_cpu_filter_features() is primarily > > intended to filter features configured by the user, > > Yes, that's why this patches intends to let x86_cpu_filter_features() > filter out the MWAIT bit which is set from the overcommit option. HMM, but in fact x86_cpu_filter_features() has already checked the MWAIT bit set by "-overcommit cpu-pm=on". ;-) (Pls correct me if I'm wrong) Revisiting what cpu-pm did to MWAIT: * Firstly, it set MWAIT bit in x86_cpu_expand_features(): x86_cpu_expand_features() -> x86_cpu_get_supported_feature_word() -> kvm_arch_get_supported_cpuid() This MWAIT is based on Host's MWAIT capability. This MWAIT enablement is fine for next x86_cpu_filter_features() and x86_cpu_filter_features() is working correctly here! * Then, MWAIT was secondly set in host_cpu_enable_cpu_pm() regardless neither Host's support or previous MWAIT enablement result. This is the root cause of your issue. Therefore, we should make cpu-pm honor his first MWAIT enablement result instead of repeatly and unconditionally setting the MWAIT bit again in host_cpu_enable_cpu_pm(). Additionally, I think the code in x86_cpu_realizefn(): cpu->mwait.ecx |= CPUID_MWAIT_EMX | CPUID_MWAIT_IBE; has the similar issue because it also should check MWAIT feature bit. Further, it may be possible to remove cpu->mwait: just check the MWAIT bit in leaf 5 of cpu_x86_cpuid(), and if MWAIT is present, use host's mwait info plus CPUID_MWAIT_EMX | CPUID_MWAIT_IBE. > > and the changes of > > CPUID after x86_cpu_filter_features() should by default be regarded like > > "QEMU knows what it is doing". > > Sure, we can add feature bits after x86_cpu_filter_features(), but I > think moving cpu_exec_realizefn() before x86_cpu_filter_features() is > more generic, and actually this is what QEMU did before commit 662175b91ff2. > > - Less redundant code. Specifically, no need to call > x86_cpu_get_supported_feature_word() again. > - Potentially there could be other features could be added from the > accel-specific realizefn, kvm_cpu_realizefn() for example. And these > features need to be checked against the host availability. Mainly I don't think this reorder is a direct fix for the problem (I just analyse it above), also in your case x86_cpu_filter_features() will print a WARNING when QEMU boots, which I don't think is cpu-pm's intention.