[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [PATCH] x86/cpu-policy: Extend the guest max policy max leaf/subleaves


  • To: Roger Pau Monné <roger.pau@xxxxxxxxxx>, Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@xxxxxxxxxx>
  • From: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@xxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2024 10:20:43 +0100
  • Autocrypt: addr=jbeulich@xxxxxxxx; keydata= xsDiBFk3nEQRBADAEaSw6zC/EJkiwGPXbWtPxl2xCdSoeepS07jW8UgcHNurfHvUzogEq5xk hu507c3BarVjyWCJOylMNR98Yd8VqD9UfmX0Hb8/BrA+Hl6/DB/eqGptrf4BSRwcZQM32aZK 7Pj2XbGWIUrZrd70x1eAP9QE3P79Y2oLrsCgbZJfEwCgvz9JjGmQqQkRiTVzlZVCJYcyGGsD /0tbFCzD2h20ahe8rC1gbb3K3qk+LpBtvjBu1RY9drYk0NymiGbJWZgab6t1jM7sk2vuf0Py O9Hf9XBmK0uE9IgMaiCpc32XV9oASz6UJebwkX+zF2jG5I1BfnO9g7KlotcA/v5ClMjgo6Gl MDY4HxoSRu3i1cqqSDtVlt+AOVBJBACrZcnHAUSuCXBPy0jOlBhxPqRWv6ND4c9PH1xjQ3NP nxJuMBS8rnNg22uyfAgmBKNLpLgAGVRMZGaGoJObGf72s6TeIqKJo/LtggAS9qAUiuKVnygo 3wjfkS9A3DRO+SpU7JqWdsveeIQyeyEJ/8PTowmSQLakF+3fote9ybzd880fSmFuIEJldWxp Y2ggPGpiZXVsaWNoQHN1c2UuY29tPsJgBBMRAgAgBQJZN5xEAhsDBgsJCAcDAgQVAggDBBYC AwECHgECF4AACgkQoDSui/t3IH4J+wCfQ5jHdEjCRHj23O/5ttg9r9OIruwAn3103WUITZee e7Sbg12UgcQ5lv7SzsFNBFk3nEQQCACCuTjCjFOUdi5Nm244F+78kLghRcin/awv+IrTcIWF hUpSs1Y91iQQ7KItirz5uwCPlwejSJDQJLIS+QtJHaXDXeV6NI0Uef1hP20+y8qydDiVkv6l IreXjTb7DvksRgJNvCkWtYnlS3mYvQ9NzS9PhyALWbXnH6sIJd2O9lKS1Mrfq+y0IXCP10eS FFGg+Av3IQeFatkJAyju0PPthyTqxSI4lZYuJVPknzgaeuJv/2NccrPvmeDg6Coe7ZIeQ8Yj t0ARxu2xytAkkLCel1Lz1WLmwLstV30g80nkgZf/wr+/BXJW/oIvRlonUkxv+IbBM3dX2OV8 AmRv1ySWPTP7AAMFB/9PQK/VtlNUJvg8GXj9ootzrteGfVZVVT4XBJkfwBcpC/XcPzldjv+3 HYudvpdNK3lLujXeA5fLOH+Z/G9WBc5pFVSMocI71I8bT8lIAzreg0WvkWg5V2WZsUMlnDL9 mpwIGFhlbM3gfDMs7MPMu8YQRFVdUvtSpaAs8OFfGQ0ia3LGZcjA6Ik2+xcqscEJzNH+qh8V m5jjp28yZgaqTaRbg3M/+MTbMpicpZuqF4rnB0AQD12/3BNWDR6bmh+EkYSMcEIpQmBM51qM EKYTQGybRCjpnKHGOxG0rfFY1085mBDZCH5Kx0cl0HVJuQKC+dV2ZY5AqjcKwAxpE75MLFkr wkkEGBECAAkFAlk3nEQCGwwACgkQoDSui/t3IH7nnwCfcJWUDUFKdCsBH/E5d+0ZnMQi+G0A nAuWpQkjM1ASeQwSHEeAWPgskBQL
  • Cc: Xen-devel <xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Alejandro Vallejo <alejandro.vallejo@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Delivery-date: Thu, 31 Oct 2024 09:20:51 +0000
  • List-id: Xen developer discussion <xen-devel.lists.xenproject.org>

On 30.10.2024 18:10, Roger Pau Monné wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 30, 2024 at 04:51:34PM +0000, Andrew Cooper wrote:
>> On 30/10/2024 3:13 pm, Roger Pau Monné wrote:
>>> On Wed, Oct 30, 2024 at 02:45:19PM +0000, Andrew Cooper wrote:
>>>> On 30/10/2024 11:03 am, Roger Pau Monné wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, Oct 30, 2024 at 10:39:12AM +0000, Andrew Cooper wrote:
>>>>>> On 30/10/2024 8:59 am, Roger Pau Monné wrote:
>>>>>>> On Tue, Oct 29, 2024 at 05:55:05PM +0000, Andrew Cooper wrote:
>>>>>>>> diff --git a/xen/arch/x86/cpu-policy.c b/xen/arch/x86/cpu-policy.c
>>>>>>>> index b6d9fad56773..78bc9872b09a 100644
>>>>>>>> --- a/xen/arch/x86/cpu-policy.c
>>>>>>>> +++ b/xen/arch/x86/cpu-policy.c
>>>>>>>> @@ -391,6 +391,27 @@ static void __init calculate_host_policy(void)
>>>>>>>>      p->platform_info.cpuid_faulting = cpu_has_cpuid_faulting;
>>>>>>>>  }
>>>>>>>>  
>>>>>>>> +/*
>>>>>>>> + * Guest max policies can have any max leaf/subleaf within bounds.
>>>>>>>> + *
>>>>>>>> + * - Some incoming VMs have a larger-than-necessary feat max_subleaf.
>>>>>>>> + * - Some VMs we'd like to synthesise leaves not present on the host.
>>>>>>>> + */
>>>>>>>> +static void __init guest_common_max_leaves(struct cpu_policy *p)
>>>>>>>> +{
>>>>>>>> +    p->basic.max_leaf       = ARRAY_SIZE(p->basic.raw) - 1;
>>>>>>>> +    p->feat.max_subleaf     = ARRAY_SIZE(p->feat.raw) - 1;
>>>>>>>> +    p->extd.max_leaf        = 0x80000000U + ARRAY_SIZE(p->extd.raw) - 
>>>>>>>> 1;
>>>>>>>> +}
>>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>>> +/* Guest default policies inherit the host max leaf/subleaf settings. 
>>>>>>>> */
>>>>>>>> +static void __init guest_common_default_leaves(struct cpu_policy *p)
>>>>>>>> +{
>>>>>>>> +    p->basic.max_leaf       = host_cpu_policy.basic.max_leaf;
>>>>>>>> +    p->feat.max_subleaf     = host_cpu_policy.feat.max_subleaf;
>>>>>>>> +    p->extd.max_leaf        = host_cpu_policy.extd.max_leaf;
>>>>>>>> +}
>>>>>>> I think this what I'm going to ask is future work.  After the
>>>>>>> modifications done to the host policy by max functions
>>>>>>> (calculate_{hvm,pv}_max_policy()) won't the max {sub,}leaf adjustments
>>>>>>> better be done taking into account the contents of the policy, rather
>>>>>>> than capping to the host values?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> (note this comment is strictly for guest_common_default_leaves(), the
>>>>>>> max version is fine using ARRAY_SIZE).
>>>>>> I'm afraid I don't follow.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> calculate_{pv,hvm}_max_policy() don't modify the host policy.
>>>>> Hm, I don't think I've expressed myself clearly, sorry.  Let me try
>>>>> again.
>>>>>
>>>>> calculate_{hvm,pv}_max_policy() extends the host policy by possibly
>>>>> setting new features, and such extended policy is then used as the
>>>>> base for the PV/HVM default policies.
>>>>>
>>>>> Won't the resulting policy in calculate_{hvm,pv}_def_policy() risks
>>>>> having bits set past the max {sub,}leaf in the host policy, as it's
>>>>> based in {hvm,pv}_def_cpu_policy that might have such bits set?
>>>> Oh, right.
>>>>
>>>> This patch doesn't change anything WRT that.
>>> Indeed, didn't intend my comment to block it, just that I think at
>>> some point the logic in guest_common_default_leaves() will need to be
>>> expanded.
>>>
>>>> But I think you're right that we do risk getting into that case (in
>>>> principle at least) because of how guest_common_*_feature_adjustment() 
>>>> work.
>>>>
>>>> Furthermore, the bug will typically get hidden because we serialise
>>>> based on the max_leaf/subleaf, and will discard feature words outside of
>>>> the max_leaf/subleaf bounds.
>>> Yes, once we serialize it for toolstack consumption the leafs will be
>>> implicitly zeroed.
>>>
>>>> I suppose we probably want a variation of x86_cpu_featureset_to_policy()
>>>> which extends the max_leaf/subleaf based on non-zero values in leaves. 
>>>> (This already feels like it's going to be an ugly algorithm.)
>>> Hm, I was thinking that we would need to adjust
>>> guest_common_default_leaves() to properly shrink the max {sub,}leaf
>>> fields from the max policies.
>>
>> Hmm.  What we'd do is have default inherit max's ARRAY_SIZES(), then do
>> all the existing logic, then as the final step, shrink the default
>> policies, vaguely per Jan's plan.
>>
>> i.e. we'd end up deleting guest_common_default_leaves()
>>
>> That way we don't need to encode any knowledge of which feature bit
>> means what WRT max_leaf/subleaf.
> 
> What about Alejandro's concern about runtime populated {sub,}leafs,
> won't we risk shrinking too much if the last leaf intended to be kept
> happens to be a fully runtime populated one?
> 
> Do we need some kind of special magic for fully run-time populated
> leafs (like the topology ones IIRC?) in order to account for them when
> doing those max calculations?

Contrary to Andrew's reply I think we will need to take runtime-populated
leaves into account specially, as you suggest. Just thinking of something
APIC-ID-like in a very high leaf, which (presumably) ought to be zero in
max/default. While keeping such fields at zero in max/default for external
exposure, filling them with a non-zero value at policy creation (maybe
simply their max value) might help keep the shrinking logic agnostic to
such special cases.

Jan



 


Rackspace

Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our
servers 24x7x365 and backed by RackSpace's Fanatical Support®.