Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > linux.kernel > #1671847 > unrolled thread

Re: [PATCH RFC] KVM: VMX: drop vmm_exclusive module parameter

Back to article view | Back to linux.kernel

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  Re: [PATCH RFC] KVM: VMX: drop vmm_exclusive module parameter Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@kernel.org> - 2017-06-21 19:50 +0200
    Re: [PATCH RFC] KVM: VMX: drop vmm_exclusive module parameter Radim Krčmář <rkrcmar@redhat.com> - 2017-06-21 20:30 +0200

#1671847 — Re: [PATCH RFC] KVM: VMX: drop vmm_exclusive module parameter

Em Fri, Mar 10, 2017 at 12:47:13PM +0100, David Hildenbrand escreveu:
> vmm_exclusive=0 leads to KVM setting X86_CR4_VMXE always and calling
> VMXON only when the vcpu is loaded. X86_CR4_VMXE is used as an
> indication in cpu_emergency_vmxoff() (called on kdump) if VMXOFF has to be
> called. This is obviously not the case if both are used independtly.
> Calling VMXOFF without a previous VMXON will result in an exception.
> 
> In addition, X86_CR4_VMXE is used as a mean to test if VMX is already in
> use by another VMM in hardware_enable(). So there can't really be
> co-existance. If the other VMM is prepared for co-existance and does a
> similar check, only one VMM can exist. If the other VMM is not prepared
> and blindly sets/clears X86_CR4_VMXE, we will get inconsistencies with
> X86_CR4_VMXE.
> 
> As we also had bug reports related to clearing of vmcs with vmm_exclusive=0
> this seems to be pretty much untested. So let's better drop it.
> 
> While at it, directly move setting/clearing X86_CR4_VMXE into
> kvm_cpu_vmxon/off.

Oh well, I was using, as suggested by Alexander, this parameter to be
able to use Intel PT on the host on a Broadwell machine, i.e.:

  perf record -e intel_pt// usleep 1
  perf script

would show decoded Intel PT records, no more :-\ But I'm clueless about
KVM internals, so just reporting the change in behaviour for this very
specific use case.

Now I don't know if this is something that would make Intel PT be usable
on Broadwell machines but wouldn't be required with newer chips, will
test with a Kaby Lake i5 7500 when back at my home office...

- Arnaldo

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#1671921

2017-06-21 14:48-0300, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo:
> Em Fri, Mar 10, 2017 at 12:47:13PM +0100, David Hildenbrand escreveu:
> > vmm_exclusive=0 leads to KVM setting X86_CR4_VMXE always and calling
> > VMXON only when the vcpu is loaded. X86_CR4_VMXE is used as an
> > indication in cpu_emergency_vmxoff() (called on kdump) if VMXOFF has to be
> > called. This is obviously not the case if both are used independtly.
> > Calling VMXOFF without a previous VMXON will result in an exception.
> > 
> > In addition, X86_CR4_VMXE is used as a mean to test if VMX is already in
> > use by another VMM in hardware_enable(). So there can't really be
> > co-existance. If the other VMM is prepared for co-existance and does a
> > similar check, only one VMM can exist. If the other VMM is not prepared
> > and blindly sets/clears X86_CR4_VMXE, we will get inconsistencies with
> > X86_CR4_VMXE.
> > 
> > As we also had bug reports related to clearing of vmcs with vmm_exclusive=0
> > this seems to be pretty much untested. So let's better drop it.
> > 
> > While at it, directly move setting/clearing X86_CR4_VMXE into
> > kvm_cpu_vmxon/off.
> 
> Oh well, I was using, as suggested by Alexander, this parameter to be
> able to use Intel PT on the host on a Broadwell machine, i.e.:
> 
>   perf record -e intel_pt// usleep 1
>   perf script

We thought that blacklisting the KVM module was a good solution ...
Were you using KVM virtual machines with vmm_exclusive=0?

> would show decoded Intel PT records, no more :-\ But I'm clueless about
> KVM internals, so just reporting the change in behaviour for this very
> specific use case.
> 
> Now I don't know if this is something that would make Intel PT be usable
> on Broadwell machines but wouldn't be required with newer chips, will
> test with a Kaby Lake i5 7500 when back at my home office...

Most likely, SDM 35.2.8.2 says:

 Initial implementations of Intel Processor Trace do not support tracing
 in VMX operation. Such processors indicate this by returning 0 for
 IA32_VMX_MISC[bit 14].

so something akin to vmm_exclusive is about the only option there.

Please try if Kaby Lake is already an advanced implementation, because
we might need to disable PT when entering VMX non-root mode
(so the tracing packets are not be written into guest's memory, just
 like with PEBS).

Thanks.

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | linux.kernel

csiph-web