Re: Thoughts of AMX KVM support based on latest kernel

[Paolo Bonzini]

On 11/16/21 19:55, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> We can do that, but I'm unhappy about this conditional in schedule(). So
> I was asking for doing a simple KVM only solution first:
>
> vcpu_run()
>          kvm_load_guest_fpu()
>              wrmsrl(XFD, guest_fpstate->xfd);
>              XRSTORS
>            
>          do {
>
>             local_irq_disable();
>
>             if (test_thread_flag(TIF_NEED_FPU_LOAD))
> 		switch_fpu_return()
>                    wrmsrl(XFD, guest_fpstate->xfd);
>
>             do {
>                  vmenter();              // Guest modifies XFD
>             } while (reenter);
>
>             update_xfd_state();          // Restore consistency
>
>             local_irq_enable();
>
> and check how bad that is for KVM in terms of overhead on AMX systems.

I agree, this is how we handle SPEC_CTRL for example and it can be 
extended to XFD.  We should first do that, then switch to the MSR lists. 
 Hacking into schedule() should really be the last resort.

>            local_irq_enable();     <- Problem starts here
>
>            preempt_enable();	   <- Becomes wider here

It doesn't become that much wider because there's always preempt 
notifiers.  So if it's okay to save XFD in the XSAVES wrapper and in 
kvm_arch_vcpu_put(), that might be already remove the need to do it 
schedule().

Paolo