On 02/16/2017 12:09 PM, Andrew Cooper wrote:
On 16/02/17 16:59, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 16.02.17 at 15:59, <boris.ostrov...@oracle.com> wrote:
vpmu_enabled() (used by hvm/pv_cpuid() to properly report 0xa leaf
for Intel processors) is based on the value of VPMU_CONTEXT_ALLOCATED
bit. This is problematic:
* For HVM guests VPMU context is allocated lazily, during the first
access to VPMU MSRs. Since the leaf is typically queried before guest
attempts to read or write the MSRs it is likely that CPUID will report
no PMU support
* For PV guests the context is allocated eagerly but only in responce to
guest's XENPMU_init hypercall. There is a chance that the guest will
try to read CPUID before making this hypercall.
This patch introduces VPMU_ENABLED flag which is set (subject to vpmu_mode
constraints) during VCPU initialization for both PV and HVM guests. Since
this flag is expected to be managed together with vpmu_count, get/put_vpmu()
are added to simplify code.
I think VPMU_ENABLED is misleading, as it may as well mean the state
after the guest did enable it. How about VPMU_AVAILABLE?
The problem is a little deeper than that.
First, there is whether it is available based on hypervisor configuration.
This bit is set only if vpmu_mode permits it.
Second, if it is available, has the toolstack chosen to allow the domain
to use it. This should determine whether features/information are
visible in CPUID.
You mean if toolstack masks out leaf 0xa on Intel? I chould check this
in get_vpmu(). Is this information available by the time
vcpu_initialise() runs?
Finally, if vpmu is permitted, has the domain turned it on.
HVM domains always do and PV domains essentially too.
-boris
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xen.org
https://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
