Re: [PATCH 4/4] x86/tsx: Add cmdline tsx=fake to not clear CPUID bits RTM and HLE
From: Eduardo Habkost <hidden>
Date: 2021-07-07 15:08:55
Also in:
kvm, linux-perf-users, lkml
CCing libvir-list, Jiri Denemark, Michal Privoznik, so they are aware that the definition of "supported CPU features" will probably become a bit more complex in the future. On Tue, Jul 6, 2021 at 5:58 PM Paolo Bonzini [off-list ref] wrote:
On 06/07/21 23:33, Eduardo Habkost wrote:quoted
On Tue, Jul 6, 2021 at 5:05 PM Paolo Bonzini [off-list ref] wrote:quoted
It's a bit tricky, because HLE and RTM won't really behave well. An old guest that sees RTM=1 might end up retrying and aborting transactions too much. So I'm not sure that a QEMU "-cpu host" guest should have HLE and RTM enabled.Is the purpose of GET_SUPPORTED_CPUID to return what is supported by KVM, or to return what "-cpu host" should enable by default? They are conflicting requirements in this case.In theory there is GET_EMULATED_CPUID for the former, so it should be the latter. In practice neither QEMU nor Libvirt use it; maybe now we have a good reason to add it, but note that userspace could also check host RTM_ALWAYS_ABORT.quoted
Returning HLE=1,RTM=1 in GET_SUPPORTED_CPUID makes existing userspace take bad decisions until it's updated. Returning HLE=0,RTM=0 in GET_SUPPORTED_CPUID prevents existing userspace from resuming existing VMs (despite being technically possible). The first option has an easy workaround that doesn't require a software update (disabling HLE/RTM in the VM configuration). The second option doesn't have a workaround. I'm inclined towards the first option.The default has already been tsx=off for a while though, so checking either GET_EMULATED_CPUID or host RTM_ALWAYS_ABORT in userspace might also be feasible for those that are still on tsx=on.
This sounds like a perfect use case for GET_EMULATED_CPUID. My only concern is breaking existing userspace. But if this was already broken for a few kernel releases due to tsx=off being the default, maybe GET_EMULATED_CPUID will be a reasonable approach. -- Eduardo