Re: [PATCH v2] KVM: x86/pmu: Fix emulation on Intel counters' bit width

[Sean Christopherson]

On Tue, Mar 28, 2023, Like Xu wrote:
> On 28/3/2023 5:20 pm, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> > On 3/28/23 11:16, Like Xu wrote:
> > > 
> > > 
> > > If IA32_PERF_CAPABILITIES.FW_WRITE[bit 13] =1, each IA32_PMCi is accompanied by a
> > > corresponding alias address starting at 4C1H for IA32_A_PMC0.
> > > 
> > > The bit width of the performance monitoring counters is specified in
> > > CPUID.0AH:EAX[23:16].
> > > If IA32_A_PMCi is present, the 64-bit input value (EDX:EAX) of WRMSR
> > > to IA32_A_PMCi will cause
> > > IA32_PMCi to be updated by:
> > > 
> > > �����COUNTERWIDTH =
> > > �������� CPUID.0AH:EAX[23:16] bit width of the performance monitoring counter
> > > �����IA32_PMCi[COUNTERWIDTH-1:32] := EDX[COUNTERWIDTH-33:0]);
> > > �����IA32_PMCi[31:0] := EAX[31:0];
> > > �����EDX[63:COUNTERWIDTH] are reserved
> > > 
> > > ---
> > > 
> > > Some might argue that this is all talking about GP counters, not
> > > fixed counters. In fact, the full-width write hw behaviour is
> > > presumed to do the same thing for all counters.
> > But the above behavior, and the #GP, is only true for IA32_A_PMCi (the
> > full-witdh MSR).� Did I understand correctly that the behavior for fixed
> > counters is changed without introducing an alias MSR?
> > 
> > Paolo
> > 
> 
> If true, why introducing those alias MSRs ?

My guess is there is/was software in the field that wrote -1 to the GP counters,
i.e. would have been broken by the new #GP behavior.

> My archaeological findings are:
> 
> a platform w/o full-witdh like Westmere (has 3-fixed counters already) is
> declared to have a counter width (R:48, W:32) and its successor Sandy Bridge
> has (R:48 , W: 32/48).
> 
> Thus I think the behaviour of the fixed counter has changed from there, and
> the alias GP MSRs were introduced to keep the support on 32-bit writes on #GP
> counters (via original address).

FWIW, I see the #GP behavior for fixed counters on Haswell, so this does seem to
be the case.  That said, I would like to get confirmation from Intel that this is
architectural and/or working as intended.

Like, can you follow up with Intel to get clarification/confirmation?  And ideally
an SDM update...