Re: [PATCH v6 8/9] KVM: VMX: Open code VMX preemption timer rate mask in its accessor

[Sean Christopherson]

On Mon, Apr 01, 2024, Xiaoyao Li wrote:
> On 3/16/2024 1:54 AM, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> > On Fri, Mar 15, 2024, Zhao Liu wrote:
> > > On Fri, Mar 08, 2024 at 05:27:24PM -0800, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> > > > Use vmx_misc_preemption_timer_rate() to get the rate in hardware_setup(),
> > > > and open code the rate's bitmask in vmx_misc_preemption_timer_rate() so
> > > > that the function looks like all the helpers that grab values from
> > > > VMX_BASIC and VMX_MISC MSR values.
> > 
> > ...
> > 
> > > > -#define VMX_MISC_PREEMPTION_TIMER_RATE_MASK	GENMASK_ULL(4, 0)
> > > >   #define VMX_MISC_SAVE_EFER_LMA			BIT_ULL(5)
> > > >   #define VMX_MISC_ACTIVITY_HLT			BIT_ULL(6)
> > > >   #define VMX_MISC_ACTIVITY_SHUTDOWN		BIT_ULL(7)
> > > > @@ -162,7 +161,7 @@ static inline u32 vmx_basic_vmcs_mem_type(u64 vmx_basic)
> > > >   static inline int vmx_misc_preemption_timer_rate(u64 vmx_misc)
> > > >   {
> > > > -	return vmx_misc & VMX_MISC_PREEMPTION_TIMER_RATE_MASK;
> > > > +	return vmx_misc & GENMASK_ULL(4, 0);
> > > >   }
> > > 
> > > I feel keeping VMX_MISC_PREEMPTION_TIMER_RATE_MASK is clearer than
> > > GENMASK_ULL(4, 0), and the former improves code readability.
> > > 
> > > May not need to drop VMX_MISC_PREEMPTION_TIMER_RATE_MASK?
> > 
> > I don't necessarily disagree, but in this case I value consistency over one
> > individual case.  As called out in the changelog, the motivation is to make
> > vmx_misc_preemption_timer_rate() look like all the surrounding helpers.
> > 
> > _If_ we want to preserve the mask, then we should add #defines for vmx_misc_cr3_count(),
> > vmx_misc_max_msr(), etc.
> > 
> > I don't have a super strong preference, though I think my vote would be to not
> > add the masks and go with this patch.  These helpers are intended to be the _only_
> > way to access the fields, i.e. they effectively _are_ the mask macros, just in
> > function form.
> > 
> 
> +1.
> 
> However, it seems different for vmx_basic_vmcs_mem_type() in patch 5, that I
> just recommended to define the MASK.
> 
> Because we already have
> 
> 	#define VMX_BASIC_MEM_TYPE_SHIFT	50
> 
> and it has been used in vmx/nested.c,
> 
> static inline u32 vmx_basic_vmcs_mem_type(u64 vmx_basic)
> {
> 	return (vmx_basic & GENMASK_ULL(53, 50)) >>
> 		VMX_BASIC_MEM_TYPE_SHIFT;
> }
> 
> looks not intuitive than original patch.

Yeah, agreed, that's taking the worst of both worlds.  I'll update patch 5 to drop
VMX_BASIC_MEM_TYPE_SHIFT when effectively "moving" it into vmx_basic_vmcs_mem_type().

Thanks!