On Fri, Apr 26, 2019 at 10:54:19PM +0800, Xiaoyao Li wrote:
> On Fri, 2019-04-26 at 07:13 -0700, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> > On Fri, Apr 26, 2019 at 11:17:52AM +0800, Like Xu wrote:
> > > Some new systems have multiple software-visible die within each package.
> > > Add support to expose Intel V2 Extended Topology Enumeration Leaf
> > > CPUID.1F.
> > >
> > > Co-developed-by: Xiaoyao Li <xiaoyao...@linux.intel.com>
> > > Signed-off-by: Xiaoyao Li <xiaoyao...@linux.intel.com>
> > > Signed-off-by: Like Xu <like...@linux.intel.com>
> > > ---
> > >
> > > ==changelog==
> > > v2:
> > > - Apply cpuid.1f check rule on Intel SDM page 3-222 Vol.2A
> > > - Add comment to handle 0x1f anf 0xb in common code
> > > - Reduce check time in a descending-break style
> > >
> > > v1: https://lkml.org/lkml/2019/4/22/28
> > >
> > > arch/x86/kvm/cpuid.c | 12 +++++++++++-
> > > 1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/cpuid.c b/arch/x86/kvm/cpuid.c
> > > index fd39516..f9b529e 100644
> > > --- a/arch/x86/kvm/cpuid.c
> > > +++ b/arch/x86/kvm/cpuid.c
> > > @@ -425,6 +425,11 @@ static inline int __do_cpuid_ent(struct
> > > kvm_cpuid_entry2 *entry, u32 function,
> > >
> > > switch (function) {
> > > case 0:
> > > + /* Check if the cpuid leaf 0x1f is actually implemented */
> > > + if (entry->eax >= 0x1f && (cpuid_ebx(0x1f) & 0x0000ffff)) {
> >
> > Restricting the check to bits 15:0 is unnecessary, the SDM explicitly
> > states that EBX will be zero for invalid sub-leaves:
> >
> > For sub-leaves that return an invalid level-type of 0 in ECX[15:8];
> > EAX and EBX will return 0.
> >
> > This code is merely checking for the existence of CPUID.1F, nothing will
> > break if future CPUs provide additional information, i.e. checking for a
> > valid sub-leaf is sufficient.
> >
> > That being said, if you insist on restricting the check to non-reserved
> > bits then I think the earlier suggestion of "cpuid_ecx(0x1f) & 0x0000ff00"
> > makes more sense since the SDM clearly intends ECX to be used to detect
> > valid vs. invalid levels.
>
> Here we use CPUID.1F_0:EBX[15:0] to check the existence, not the output of
> ECX[15:8], which is following the Intel SDM.
>
> Specifically, in page 3-222 Vol.2A of latest SDM publish on January 2019,
> there
> is such description of Input EAX = 1FH:
>
> When CPUID executes with EAX set to 1FH, the processor returns information
> about extended topology enumeration data. Software must detect the presence
> of CPUID leaf 1FH by verifying (a) the highest leaf index supported by
> CPUID
> is >= 1FH, and (b) CPUID.1FH:EBX[15:0] reports a non-zero value.
Ah, perfect. Please put exactly that in the changelog.
>
> And also, I look up the existing codes about initialising topology using leaf
> 0xb in kernel. In function detect_extended_topology_early(), it use following
>
> if (ebx == 0 || (LEAFB_SUBTYPE(ecx) != SMT_TYPE))
>
> to verify whether leaf 0xb is invalid. I think any of them is strong enough to
> verify the leaf 0xb is invalid, so I don't know why it uses both of them.
>
> > > + entry->eax = 0x1f;
> > > + break;
> >
> > I find if/else easier to follow than the separate break, but either option
> > works for me.
> >
> > > + }
> > > entry->eax = min(entry->eax, (u32)(f_intel_pt ? 0x14 : 0xd));
> > > break;
> > > case 1:
> > > @@ -544,7 +549,12 @@ static inline int __do_cpuid_ent(struct
> > > kvm_cpuid_entry2 *entry, u32 function,
> > > entry->edx = edx.full;
> > > break;
> > > }
> > > - /* function 0xb has additional index. */
> > > + /*
> > > + * Intel documentation states that 0x1f and 0xb have
> > > + * identical formats and thus can be handled by common code.
> > > + * (Intel SDM Vol. 2A - Instruction Set Reference - CPUID)
> > > + */
> >
> > It's probably safe to assume anyone reading reading this code is already
> > all too aware of Intel's propensity for dumping CPUID enumeration into the
> > CPUID entry in the ISR. Maybe shorten this to something like:
> >
> > /*
> > * Per Intel's SDM, 0x1f is a superset of 0xb, thus they can be handled
> > * by common code.
> > */
> >
> > > + case 0x1f:
> > > case 0xb: {
> > > int i, level_type;
> > >
> > > --
> > > 1.8.3.1
> > >
>
