Re: [PATCH v2 2/3] KVM: SVM: Modify AVIC GATag to support max number of 512 vCPUs

[Suthikulpanit, Suravee]

On 2/7/2023 11:38 PM, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 07, 2023, Joao Martins wrote:
> > On 07/02/2023 08:33, Igor Mammedov wrote:
> > > On Tue,  7 Feb 2023 00:21:55 +0000
> > > Sean Christopherson <seanjc@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >
> > > > From: Suravee Suthikulpanit <suravee.suthikulpanit@xxxxxxx>
> > > >
> > > > Define AVIC_VCPU_ID_MASK based on AVIC_PHYSICAL_MAX_INDEX, i.e. the mask
> > > > that effectively controls the largest guest physical APIC ID supported by
> > > > x2AVIC, instead of hardcoding the number of bits to 8 (and the number of
> > > > VM bits to 24).
> > >
> > > Is there any particular reason not to tie it to max supported by KVM
> > > KVM_MAX_VCPU_IDS?
> > >
> > > Another question:
> > >   will guest fail to start when configured with more than 512 vCPUs
> > >   or it will start broken?
> >
> > I think the problem is not so much the GATag (which can really be anything at
> > the resolution you want). It's more of an SVM limit AIUI. Provided you can't
> > have GATAgs if you don't have guest-mode/AVIC active, then makes sense have the
> > same limit on both.

Correct.

> Yep.  The physical ID table, which is needed to achieve full AVIC benefits for a
> vCPU, is a single 4KiB page that holds 512 64-bit entries.  AIUI, the GATag is
> used if and only if the interrupt target is in the physical ID table, so using
> more GATag bits for vCPU ID is pointless.

Correct.

> > SVM seems to be limited to 256 vcpus in xAPIC mode or 512 vcpus in x2APIC
> > mode[0]. IIUC You actually won't be able to create guests with more than
> > 512vcpus as KVM bound checks those max limits very early in the vCPU init (see
> > avic_init_vcpu()). I guess the alternative would an AVIC inhibit if vCPU count
> > goes beyond those limits -- probably a must have once avic flips to 1 by default
> > like Intel.
>
> I don't _think_ KVM would have to explicitly inhibit AVIC.  I believe the fallout
> would be that vCPUs >= 512 would simply not be eligible for virtual interrupt
> delivery, e.g. KVM would get a "Invalid Target in IPI" exit.  I haven't dug into
> the IOMMU side of things though, so it's possible something in that world would
> necessitate disabling (x2)AVIC.

SVM-AVIC is independent of the IOMMU-AVIC. We can enable SVM-AVIC, and 
use the legacy IOMMU interrupt remapping mode IRTE[GuestMode]=0.
However, I have not explored the case of combining of the two modes. I 
can look into it and experiment with this case.

Thanks,
Suravee

> > [0] in APM Volume 2 15.29.4.3 Physical Address Pointer Restrictions,
> >
> > * All the addresses point to 4-Kbyte aligned data structures. Bits 11:0 are
> > reserved (except for offset 0F8h) and should be set to zero. The lower 8 bits of
> > offset 0F8h are used for the field AVIC_PHYSICAL_MAX_INDEX. VMRUN fails with
> > #VMEXIT(VMEXIT_INVALID) if AVIC_PHYSICAL_MAX_INDEX is greater than 255 in xAVIC
> > mode or greater than 511 in x2AVIC mode.