On Fri, Jul 18, 2025 at 07:24:15AM -0700, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 18, 2025, Naveen N Rao wrote:
> > On Mon, Jun 23, 2025 at 04:17:13PM -0700, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> > > On Thu, Feb 20, 2025, Naveen N Rao (AMD) wrote:
> > > > + if (x2avic_4k_vcpu_supported) {
> > > > + x2avic_max_physical_id = X2AVIC_MAX_PHYSICAL_ID_4K;
> > > > + avic_physical_max_index_mask = AVIC_PHYSICAL_MAX_INDEX_4K_MASK;
> > > > + } else {
> > > > + x2avic_max_physical_id = X2AVIC_MAX_PHYSICAL_ID;
> > > > + avic_physical_max_index_mask = AVIC_PHYSICAL_MAX_INDEX_MASK;
> > > > + }
> > > > +
> > > > + pr_info("x2AVIC enabled%s\n",
> > > > + x2avic_4k_vcpu_supported ? " (w/ 4K-vcpu)" : "");
> > >
> > > Maybe print the max number of vCPUs that are supported? That way there is clear
> > > signal when 4k *isn't* supported (and communicating the max number of vCPUs in
> > > the !4k case would be helpful too).
> >
> > I'm tempted to go the opposite way and not print that 4k vCPUs are
> > supported by x2AVIC. As it is, there are many reasons AVIC may be
> > inhibited and lack of 4k vCPU support is just one other reason, but only
> > for large VMs.
>
> This isn't just about AVIC being inhibited though, it's about communicating
> hardware support to the admin/user. While I usually advocate *against* using
> printk to log information, I find SVM's pr_info()s about what is/isn't enabled
> during module load to be extremely useful, e.g. as sanity checks. I (re)load
> kvm-amd.ko on various hardware configurations on a regular basis, and more than
> once the prints have helped me "remember" which platforms do/don't have SEV-ES,
> AVIC, etc, and/or detect that I loaded kvm-amd.ko with the wrong overrides.
Sure, if you are finding it helpful, that's fine.
>
> > Most users shouldn't have to care: where possible, AVIC will be enabled
> > by default (once that patch series lands). Users who truly care about
> > AVIC will anyway need to confirm AVIC isn't inhibited since looking at
> > the kernel log won't be sufficient. Those users can very well use cpuid
> > to figure out if 4k vCPU support is present.
>
> If there wasn't already an "x2AVIC enabled" print, I would probably lean toward
> doing nothing. But since pr_info("x2AVIC enabled\n") already exists, and has
> plently of free space for adding extra information, there's basically zero downside
> to printing out the number of supported CPUs. And it's not just a binary yes/no,
> e.g. I would wager most people couldn't state the number of vCPUs supported by
> the "old" x2AVIC.
Ok, this is what I have now. Let me know if you prefer different
wording:
/* AVIC is a prerequisite for x2AVIC. */
x2avic_enabled = boot_cpu_has(X86_FEATURE_X2AVIC);
- if (x2avic_enabled)
- pr_info("x2AVIC enabled\n");
+ if (x2avic_enabled) {
+ if (cpu_feature_enabled(X86_FEATURE_X2AVIC_EXT))
+ x2avic_max_physical_id = X2AVIC_4K_MAX_PHYSICAL_ID;
+ pr_info("x2AVIC enabled (upto %lld vCPUs)\n", x2avic_max_physical_id + 1);
+ }
- Naveen
