| Message ID | 1318843022-20344-3-git-send-email-vrozenfe@redhat.com |
|---|---|
| State | New |
| Headers | show |
On 10/17/2011 11:17 AM, Vadim Rozenfeld wrote: > @@ -379,11 +380,16 @@ int kvm_arch_init_vcpu(CPUState *env) > cpuid_i = 0; > > /* Paravirtualization CPUIDs */ > - memcpy(signature, "KVMKVMKVM\0\0\0", 12); > c =&cpuid_data.entries[cpuid_i++]; > memset(c, 0, sizeof(*c)); > c->function = KVM_CPUID_SIGNATURE; > - c->eax = 0; > + if (!hyperv_enabled()) { > + memcpy(signature, "KVMKVMKVM\0\0\0", 12); > + c->eax = 0; > + } else { > + memcpy(signature, "Microsoft Hv", 12); > + c->eax = HYPERV_CPUID_MIN; > + } Even not counting that hyper-v support should IMHO not be in KVM-specific code, I still think this shouldn't remove KVM leaves completely but rather move them to 0x40000100. The KVM paravirtualization code then can similarly probe with 0x100 stride up to 0x40001000. This is what was done for Xen, and it allows to enable enlightenments independent of whether the guest is Linux or Windows. However, let's get a third opinion---Avi, what do you think? Paolo
On 10/17/2011 11:40 AM, Paolo Bonzini wrote: > On 10/17/2011 11:17 AM, Vadim Rozenfeld wrote: >> @@ -379,11 +380,16 @@ int kvm_arch_init_vcpu(CPUState *env) >> cpuid_i = 0; >> >> /* Paravirtualization CPUIDs */ >> - memcpy(signature, "KVMKVMKVM\0\0\0", 12); >> c =&cpuid_data.entries[cpuid_i++]; >> memset(c, 0, sizeof(*c)); >> c->function = KVM_CPUID_SIGNATURE; >> - c->eax = 0; >> + if (!hyperv_enabled()) { >> + memcpy(signature, "KVMKVMKVM\0\0\0", 12); >> + c->eax = 0; >> + } else { >> + memcpy(signature, "Microsoft Hv", 12); >> + c->eax = HYPERV_CPUID_MIN; >> + } > > Even not counting that hyper-v support should IMHO not be in > KVM-specific code, I still think this shouldn't remove KVM leaves > completely but rather move them to 0x40000100. The KVM > paravirtualization code then can similarly probe with 0x100 stride up > to 0x40001000. This is what was done for Xen, and it allows to enable > enlightenments independent of whether the guest is Linux or Windows. > > However, let's get a third opinion---Avi, what do you think? I agree with you, especially as this already works for Xen. Note it doesn't completely solve the issue (so we have two interfaces, which is the preferred one?), but it's better than nothing.
On 10/17/2011 12:41 PM, Avi Kivity wrote: > > Even not counting that hyper-v support should IMHO not be in > > KVM-specific code, I still think this shouldn't remove KVM leaves > > completely but rather move them to 0x40000100. The KVM > > paravirtualization code then can similarly probe with 0x100 stride up > > to 0x40001000. This is what was done for Xen, and it allows to enable > > enlightenments independent of whether the guest is Linux or Windows. > > > > However, let's get a third opinion---Avi, what do you think? > > I agree with you, especially as this already works for Xen. > > Note it doesn't completely solve the issue (so we have two interfaces, > which is the preferred one?), but it's better than nothing. Windows doesn't look beyond 0x40000000, so Hyper-V stays there and KVM has to shift. So MS solved that part for us. :) Paolo
On 10/17/2011 12:42 PM, Paolo Bonzini wrote: > On 10/17/2011 12:41 PM, Avi Kivity wrote: >> > Even not counting that hyper-v support should IMHO not be in >> > KVM-specific code, I still think this shouldn't remove KVM leaves >> > completely but rather move them to 0x40000100. The KVM >> > paravirtualization code then can similarly probe with 0x100 stride up >> > to 0x40001000. This is what was done for Xen, and it allows to >> enable >> > enlightenments independent of whether the guest is Linux or Windows. >> > >> > However, let's get a third opinion---Avi, what do you think? >> >> I agree with you, especially as this already works for Xen. >> >> Note it doesn't completely solve the issue (so we have two interfaces, >> which is the preferred one?), but it's better than nothing. > > Windows doesn't look beyond 0x40000000, so Hyper-V stays there and KVM > has to shift. So MS solved that part for us. :) I mean, suppose Linux finds hyper-v at 000 and kvm at 100. Is it kvm impersonating hyper-v, or a future hyper-v impersonating kvm, or something else (TAINT_CRAP?) impersonating both?
diff --git a/target-i386/kvm.c b/target-i386/kvm.c index 3840255..30b3e85 100644 --- a/target-i386/kvm.c +++ b/target-i386/kvm.c @@ -29,6 +29,7 @@ #include "hw/pc.h" #include "hw/apic.h" #include "ioport.h" +#include "hyperv.h" //#define DEBUG_KVM @@ -379,11 +380,16 @@ int kvm_arch_init_vcpu(CPUState *env) cpuid_i = 0; /* Paravirtualization CPUIDs */ - memcpy(signature, "KVMKVMKVM\0\0\0", 12); c = &cpuid_data.entries[cpuid_i++]; memset(c, 0, sizeof(*c)); c->function = KVM_CPUID_SIGNATURE; - c->eax = 0; + if (!hyperv_enabled()) { + memcpy(signature, "KVMKVMKVM\0\0\0", 12); + c->eax = 0; + } else { + memcpy(signature, "Microsoft Hv", 12); + c->eax = HYPERV_CPUID_MIN; + } c->ebx = signature[0]; c->ecx = signature[1]; c->edx = signature[2]; @@ -394,6 +400,45 @@ int kvm_arch_init_vcpu(CPUState *env) c->eax = env->cpuid_kvm_features & kvm_arch_get_supported_cpuid(s, KVM_CPUID_FEATURES, 0, R_EAX); + if (hyperv_enabled()) { + memcpy(signature, "Hv#1\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0", 12); + c->eax = signature[0]; + + c = &cpuid_data.entries[cpuid_i++]; + memset(c, 0, sizeof(*c)); + c->function = HYPERV_CPUID_VERSION; + c->eax = 0x00001bbc; + c->ebx = 0x00060001; + + c = &cpuid_data.entries[cpuid_i++]; + memset(c, 0, sizeof(*c)); + c->function = HYPERV_CPUID_FEATURES; + if (hyperv_get_relaxed_timing()) { + c->eax |= HV_X64_MSR_HYPERCALL_AVAILABLE; + } + if (hyperv_get_vapic_recommended()) { + c->eax |= HV_X64_MSR_HYPERCALL_AVAILABLE; + c->eax |= HV_X64_MSR_APIC_ACCESS_AVAILABLE; + } + + c = &cpuid_data.entries[cpuid_i++]; + memset(c, 0, sizeof(*c)); + c->function = HYPERV_CPUID_ENLIGHTMENT_INFO; + if (hyperv_get_relaxed_timing()) { + c->eax |= HV_X64_RELAXED_TIMING_RECOMMENDED; + } + if (hyperv_get_vapic_recommended()) { + c->eax |= HV_X64_APIC_ACCESS_RECOMMENDED; + } + c->ebx = hyperv_get_spinlock_retries(); + + c = &cpuid_data.entries[cpuid_i++]; + memset(c, 0, sizeof(*c)); + c->function = HYPERV_CPUID_IMPLEMENT_LIMITS; + c->eax = 0x40; + c->ebx = 0x40; + } + has_msr_async_pf_en = c->eax & (1 << KVM_FEATURE_ASYNC_PF); cpu_x86_cpuid(env, 0, 0, &limit, &unused, &unused, &unused); @@ -945,6 +990,13 @@ static int kvm_put_msrs(CPUState *env, int level) kvm_msr_entry_set(&msrs[n++], MSR_KVM_ASYNC_PF_EN, env->async_pf_en_msr); } + if (hyperv_hypercall_available()) { + kvm_msr_entry_set(&msrs[n++], HV_X64_MSR_GUEST_OS_ID, 0); + kvm_msr_entry_set(&msrs[n++], HV_X64_MSR_HYPERCALL, 0); + } + if (hyperv_get_vapic_recommended()) { + kvm_msr_entry_set(&msrs[n++], HV_X64_MSR_APIC_ASSIST_PAGE, 0); + } } if (env->mcg_cap) { int i; @@ -1179,6 +1231,14 @@ static int kvm_get_msrs(CPUState *env) msrs[n++].index = MSR_KVM_ASYNC_PF_EN; } + if (hyperv_hypercall_available()) { + msrs[n++].index = HV_X64_MSR_GUEST_OS_ID; + msrs[n++].index = HV_X64_MSR_HYPERCALL; + } + if (hyperv_get_vapic_recommended()) { + msrs[n++].index = HV_X64_MSR_APIC_ASSIST_PAGE; + } + if (env->mcg_cap) { msrs[n++].index = MSR_MCG_STATUS; msrs[n++].index = MSR_MCG_CTL;