On Thu, Mar 07, 2013 at 01:18:24PM +0100, Jan Kiszka wrote:
> On 2013-03-07 13:05, Gleb Natapov wrote:
> > On Thu, Mar 07, 2013 at 12:57:27PM +0100, Jan Kiszka wrote:
> >>>> Ah, sorry, you are not seeing what I'm looking at: The test will change
> >>>> for L2 context once unrestricted guest mode is added. At that point, it
> >>>> makes more sense to split it into one version that checks against
> >>>> VMXON_CR0_ALWAYSON while in vmxon, targeting L1, and another that does
> >>>> more complex evaluation for L2, depending on nested_cpu_has2(vmcs12,
> >>>> SECONDARY_EXEC_UNRESTRICTED_GUEST).
> >>>>
> >>> Ah, OK. Hard to argue that those checks can be consolidated without
> >>> seeing them :) So you want to implement unrestricted L1 on restricted L0
> >>> and
> >>> let L0 emulate real mode of L2 directly?
> >>
> >> Err, no. :) Well, that emulation might even work but doesn't help unless
> >> you also emulate EPT (not unrestricted guest mode without EPT support -
> >> according to the spec).
> > Yes, of course EPT is needed, but patches are available :) I think it
> > should speedup L2 real mode substantially. No need to go to L1 for each
> > instruction emulation and L1 will have to exit to L0 many times during
> > emulation of some instructions.
>
> The point is: If you already have EPT on the host, you likely also have
> native unrestricted guest mode. You just need to expose it and adjust
> some minor things (like this bug here) along the way. Not sure how many
> CPUs had EPT but no unrestricted guest mode. Do you have numbers?
>
AFAIK every single one before Westmere. Nehalem does no have it for
sure.
--
Gleb.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
