Re: [PATCH 1/1] kvm: add support for guest physical bits

[Xiaoyao Li]

On 3/4/2024 10:58 PM, Gerd Hoffmann wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 04, 2024 at 09:54:40AM +0800, Xiaoyao Li wrote:
> > On 3/1/2024 6:17 PM, Gerd Hoffmann wrote:
> > > query kvm for supported guest physical address bits using
> > > KVM_CAP_VM_GPA_BITS.  Expose the value to the guest via cpuid
> > > (leaf 0x80000008, eax, bits 16-23).
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Gerd Hoffmann <kraxel@redhat.com>
> > > ---
> > >    target/i386/cpu.h     | 1 +
> > >    target/i386/cpu.c     | 1 +
> > >    target/i386/kvm/kvm.c | 8 ++++++++
> > >    3 files changed, 10 insertions(+)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/target/i386/cpu.h b/target/i386/cpu.h
> > > index 952174bb6f52..d427218827f6 100644
> > > --- a/target/i386/cpu.h
> > > +++ b/target/i386/cpu.h
> > > @@ -2026,6 +2026,7 @@ struct ArchCPU {
> > >        /* Number of physical address bits supported */
> > >        uint32_t phys_bits;
> > > +    uint32_t guest_phys_bits;
> > >        /* in order to simplify APIC support, we leave this pointer to the
> > >           user */
> > > diff --git a/target/i386/cpu.c b/target/i386/cpu.c
> > > index 2666ef380891..1a6cfc75951e 100644
> > > --- a/target/i386/cpu.c
> > > +++ b/target/i386/cpu.c
> > > @@ -6570,6 +6570,7 @@ void cpu_x86_cpuid(CPUX86State *env, uint32_t index, 
> > > uint32_t count,
> > >            if (env->features[FEAT_8000_0001_EDX] & CPUID_EXT2_LM) {
> > >                /* 64 bit processor */
> > >                 *eax |= (cpu_x86_virtual_addr_width(env) << 8);
> > > +             *eax |= (cpu->guest_phys_bits << 16);
> >
> > I think you misunderstand this field.
> >
> > If you expose this field to guest, it's the information for nested guest.
> > i.e., the guest itself runs as a hypervisor will know its nested guest can
> > have guest_phys_bits for physical addr.
>
> I think those limits (l1 + l2 guest phys-bits) are identical, no?

Sorry, I didn't know this patch was based on the off-list proposal made 
by Paolo that changing the definition of CPUID.0x80000008:EAX[23:16] to 
advertise the "maximum usable physical address bits".

If you call out this in the change log, it can avoid the misunderstanding.

As I replied to KVM series, I think the info is better to setup by KVM 
and reported by GET_SUPPORTED_CPUID.

> The problem this tries to solve is that making the guest phys-bits
> smaller than the host phys-bits is problematic (which why we have
> allow_smaller_maxphyaddr), but nevertheless there are cases where
> the usable guest physical address space is smaller than the host
> physical address space.  One case is intel processors with phys-bits
> larger than 48 and 4-level EPT.  Another case is amd processors with
> phys-bits larger than 48 and the l0 hypervisor using 4-level paging.
>
> The guest needs to know that limit, specifically the guest firmware
> so it knows where it can map PCI bars.
>
> take care,
>    Gerd