Re: [PATCHv4 1/8] x86/cpu: Add CPUID feature bit for VNMI

[Shukla, Santosh]

On 9/1/2022 11:13 PM, Jim Mattson wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 1, 2022 at 5:45 AM Shukla, Santosh <santosh.shukla@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Jim,
>>
>> On 9/1/2022 5:12 AM, Jim Mattson wrote:
>>> On Mon, Aug 29, 2022 at 3:09 AM Santosh Shukla <santosh.shukla@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> VNMI feature allows the hypervisor to inject NMI into the guest w/o
>>>> using Event injection mechanism, The benefit of using VNMI over the
>>>> event Injection that does not require tracking the Guest's NMI state and
>>>> intercepting the IRET for the NMI completion. VNMI achieves that by
>>>> exposing 3 capability bits in VMCB intr_cntrl which helps with
>>>> virtualizing NMI injection and NMI_Masking.
>>>>
>>>> The presence of this feature is indicated via the CPUID function
>>>> 0x8000000A_EDX[25].
>>>>
>>>> Reviewed-by: Maxim Levitsky <mlevitsk@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Santosh Shukla <santosh.shukla@xxxxxxx>
>>>> ---
>>>>  arch/x86/include/asm/cpufeatures.h | 1 +
>>>>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/arch/x86/include/asm/cpufeatures.h b/arch/x86/include/asm/cpufeatures.h
>>>> index ef4775c6db01..33e3603be09e 100644
>>>> --- a/arch/x86/include/asm/cpufeatures.h
>>>> +++ b/arch/x86/include/asm/cpufeatures.h
>>>> @@ -356,6 +356,7 @@
>>>>  #define X86_FEATURE_VGIF               (15*32+16) /* Virtual GIF */
>>>>  #define X86_FEATURE_X2AVIC             (15*32+18) /* Virtual x2apic */
>>>>  #define X86_FEATURE_V_SPEC_CTRL                (15*32+20) /* Virtual SPEC_CTRL */
>>>> +#define X86_FEATURE_V_NMI              (15*32+25) /* Virtual NMI */
>>>>  #define X86_FEATURE_SVME_ADDR_CHK      (15*32+28) /* "" SVME addr check */
>>>
>>> Why is it "V_NMI," but "VGIF"?
>>>
>> I guess you are asking why I chose V_NMI and not VNMI, right?
>> if so then there are two reasons for going with V_NMI - IP bits are named in order
>> V_NMI, V_NMI_MASK, and V_NMI_ENABLE style and also Intel already using VNMI (X86_FEATURE_VNMI)
> 
> I would argue that inconsistency and arbitrary underscores
> unnecessarily increase the cognitive load. It is not immediately
> obvious to me that an extra underscore implies AMD. What's wrong with
> X86_FEATURE_AMD_VNMI? We already have over half a dozen AMD feature

AMD prefix (X86_FEATURE_AMD_VNMI) is fine with me.

> bits that are distinguished from the Intel version by an AMD prefix.

Hi Paolo,

  Is there any other suggestions/comment on v4? Should I send v5 with Prefix change or
you're ok to consider v4 with AMD prefix change?

Thanks,
Santosh