On 14/04/2021 13:57, Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 14.04.2021 13:04, Roger Pau Monne wrote:
>> @@ -264,6 +265,38 @@ struct cpuid_policy
>> };
>> uint32_t nc:8, :4, apic_id_size:4, :16;
>> uint32_t /* d */:32;
>> +
>> + uint64_t :64, :64; /* Leaf 0x80000009. */
>> + uint64_t :64, :64; /* Leaf 0x8000000a - SVM rev and features. */
>> + uint64_t :64, :64; /* Leaf 0x8000000b. */
>> + uint64_t :64, :64; /* Leaf 0x8000000c. */
>> + uint64_t :64, :64; /* Leaf 0x8000000d. */
>> + uint64_t :64, :64; /* Leaf 0x8000000e. */
>> + uint64_t :64, :64; /* Leaf 0x8000000f. */
>> + uint64_t :64, :64; /* Leaf 0x80000010. */
>> + uint64_t :64, :64; /* Leaf 0x80000011. */
>> + uint64_t :64, :64; /* Leaf 0x80000012. */
>> + uint64_t :64, :64; /* Leaf 0x80000013. */
>> + uint64_t :64, :64; /* Leaf 0x80000014. */
>> + uint64_t :64, :64; /* Leaf 0x80000015. */
>> + uint64_t :64, :64; /* Leaf 0x80000016. */
>> + uint64_t :64, :64; /* Leaf 0x80000017. */
>> + uint64_t :64, :64; /* Leaf 0x80000018. */
>> + uint64_t :64, :64; /* Leaf 0x80000019 - TLB 1GB Identifiers. */
>> + uint64_t :64, :64; /* Leaf 0x8000001a - Performance related
>> info. */
>> + uint64_t :64, :64; /* Leaf 0x8000001b - IBS feature
>> information. */
>> + uint64_t :64, :64; /* Leaf 0x8000001c. */
>> + uint64_t :64, :64; /* Leaf 0x8000001d - Cache properties. */
>> + uint64_t :64, :64; /* Leaf 0x8000001e - Extd APIC/Core/Node
>> IDs. */
>> + uint64_t :64, :64; /* Leaf 0x8000001f - AMD Secure Encryption.
>> */
>> + uint64_t :64, :64; /* Leaf 0x80000020 - Platform QoS. */
>> +
>> + /* Leaf 0x80000021 - Extended Feature 2 */
>> + union {
>> + uint32_t e21a;
>> + struct { DECL_BITFIELD(e21a); };
>> + };
>> + uint32_t /* b */:32, /* c */:32, /* d */:32;
>> };
>> } extd;
> Due to the effect of this on what guests get to see, I think this
> wants to take my "x86/CPUID: shrink max_{,sub}leaf fields according
> to actual leaf contents" as a prereq, which in turn may better
> remain on top of "x86/CPUID: adjust extended leaves out of range
> clearing" (both are neighbors in that over 4 months old series,
> fair parts of which could imo go in irrespective of the unsettled
> dispute on xvmalloc() - unfortunately I had made that patch 2 of
> the series, not expecting it to be blocked for so long, and then
> presumably signaling to others that the rest of the series is also
> blocked).
There is no shrinking to be done in this case. The bit is set across
the board on AMD/Hygon hardware, even on older parts.
What does need changing however is the logic to trim max_extd_leaf down
to what hardware supports, so the bit is visible on Rome/older
hardware. I.e. after this change, all VMs should get 0x80000021 by
default on AMD hardware.
(A curious observation of Milan hardware is that it actually advertises
0x80000023 as max_extd_leaf, and has two leaves of zeros at the end.
I've got an open query about this.)
~Andrew
