On Sat, 1 Jun 2024 23:26:55 +0800
Zhao Liu <zhao1....@intel.com> wrote:
> On Fri, May 31, 2024 at 10:13:47AM -0700, Chen, Zide wrote:
> > Date: Fri, 31 May 2024 10:13:47 -0700
> > From: "Chen, Zide" <zide.c...@intel.com>
> > Subject: Re: [PATCH V2 2/3] target/i386: call cpu_exec_realizefn before
> > x86_cpu_filter_features
> >
> > On 5/30/2024 11:30 PM, Zhao Liu wrote:
> > > Hi Zide,
> > >
> > > On Fri, May 24, 2024 at 01:00:16PM -0700, Zide Chen wrote:
> > >> Date: Fri, 24 May 2024 13:00:16 -0700
> > >> From: Zide Chen <zide.c...@intel.com>
> > >> Subject: [PATCH V2 2/3] target/i386: call cpu_exec_realizefn before
> > >> x86_cpu_filter_features
> > >> X-Mailer: git-send-email 2.34.1
> > >>
> > >> cpu_exec_realizefn which calls the accel-specific realizefn may expand
> > >> features. e.g., some accel-specific options may require extra features
> > >> to be enabled, and it's appropriate to expand these features in accel-
> > >> specific realizefn.
> > >>
> > >> One such example is the cpu-pm option, which may add CPUID_EXT_MONITOR.
> > >>
> > >> Thus, call cpu_exec_realizefn before x86_cpu_filter_features to ensure
> > >> that it won't expose features not supported by the host.
> > >>
> > >> Fixes: 662175b91ff2 ("i386: reorder call to cpu_exec_realizefn")
> > >> Suggested-by: Xiaoyao Li <xiaoyao...@intel.com>
> > >> Signed-off-by: Zide Chen <zide.c...@intel.com>
> > >> ---
> > >> target/i386/cpu.c | 24 ++++++++++++------------
> > >> target/i386/kvm/kvm-cpu.c | 1 -
> > >> 2 files changed, 12 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-)
> > >>
> > >> diff --git a/target/i386/cpu.c b/target/i386/cpu.c
> > >> index bc2dceb647fa..a1c1c785bd2f 100644
> > >> --- a/target/i386/cpu.c
> > >> +++ b/target/i386/cpu.c
> > >> @@ -7604,6 +7604,18 @@ static void x86_cpu_realizefn(DeviceState *dev,
> > >> Error **errp)
> > >> }
> > >> }
> > >>
> > >> + /*
> > >> + * note: the call to the framework needs to happen after feature
> > >> expansion,
> > >> + * but before the checks/modifications to ucode_rev, mwait,
> > >> phys_bits.
> > >> + * These may be set by the accel-specific code,
> > >> + * and the results are subsequently checked / assumed in this
> > >> function.
> > >> + */
> > >> + cpu_exec_realizefn(cs, &local_err);
> > >> + if (local_err != NULL) {
> > >> + error_propagate(errp, local_err);
> > >> + return;
> > >> + }
> > >> +
> > >> x86_cpu_filter_features(cpu, cpu->check_cpuid ||
> > >> cpu->enforce_cpuid);
> > >
> > > For your case, which sets cpu-pm=on via overcommit, then
> > > x86_cpu_filter_features() will complain that mwait is not supported.
> > >
> > > Such warning is not necessary, because the purpose of overcommit (from
> > > code) is only to support mwait when possible, not to commit to support
> > > mwait in Guest.
> > >
> > > Additionally, I understand x86_cpu_filter_features() is primarily
> > > intended to filter features configured by the user,
> >
> > Yes, that's why this patches intends to let x86_cpu_filter_features()
> > filter out the MWAIT bit which is set from the overcommit option.
>
> HMM, but in fact x86_cpu_filter_features() has already checked the MWAIT
> bit set by "-overcommit cpu-pm=on". ;-)
>
> (Pls correct me if I'm wrong) Revisiting what cpu-pm did to MWAIT:
> * Firstly, it set MWAIT bit in x86_cpu_expand_features():
> x86_cpu_expand_features()
> -> x86_cpu_get_supported_feature_word()
> -> kvm_arch_get_supported_cpuid()
> This MWAIT is based on Host's MWAIT capability. This MWAIT enablement
> is fine for next x86_cpu_filter_features() and x86_cpu_filter_features()
> is working correctly here!
>
> * Then, MWAIT was secondly set in host_cpu_enable_cpu_pm() regardless
> neither Host's support or previous MWAIT enablement result. This is
> the root cause of your issue.
>
> Therefore, we should make cpu-pm honor his first MWAIT enablement result
> instead of repeatly and unconditionally setting the MWAIT bit again in
> host_cpu_enable_cpu_pm().
>
> Additionally, I think the code in x86_cpu_realizefn():
> cpu->mwait.ecx |= CPUID_MWAIT_EMX | CPUID_MWAIT_IBE;
> has the similar issue because it also should check MWAIT feature bit.
>
> Further, it may be possible to remove cpu->mwait: just check the MWAIT
> bit in leaf 5 of cpu_x86_cpuid(), and if MWAIT is present, use host's
> mwait info plus CPUID_MWAIT_EMX | CPUID_MWAIT_IBE.
Agreed with above analysis,
we shouldn't have host_cpu_enable_cpu_pm() as kvm_arch_get_supported_cpuid
gets us MWAIT already.
filling in cpu->mwait.ecx is benign mistake which likely doesn't
trigger anything if CPUID_EXT_MONITOR is not present.
But for clarity it's better to add an explicit check there as well.
>
> > > and the changes of
> > > CPUID after x86_cpu_filter_features() should by default be regarded like
> > > "QEMU knows what it is doing".
> >
> > Sure, we can add feature bits after x86_cpu_filter_features(), but I
> > think moving cpu_exec_realizefn() before x86_cpu_filter_features() is
> > more generic, and actually this is what QEMU did before commit 662175b91ff2.
> >
> > - Less redundant code. Specifically, no need to call
> > x86_cpu_get_supported_feature_word() again.
> > - Potentially there could be other features could be added from the
> > accel-specific realizefn, kvm_cpu_realizefn() for example. And these
> > features need to be checked against the host availability.
>
> Mainly I don't think this reorder is a direct fix for the problem (I
> just analyse it above), also in your case x86_cpu_filter_features() will
> print a WARNING when QEMU boots, which I don't think is cpu-pm's intention.
There is no problem with warning, I'd even say it's a good thing.
But you are right reordering just masks the issue.
As for expected behavior, if user asked for "-overcommit cpu-pm=on"
there are 2 options:
* it's working as expected (mwait exiting is enabled successfully with CPUID
MONITOR bit set)
* QEMU shall fail to start.
