On Mon, Jul 21, 2025, Naveen N Rao wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 18, 2025 at 07:24:15AM -0700, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> > 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;
I actually like the approach you initially posted, where KVM explicitly sets
x2avic_max_physical_id for both paths. KVM could obviously rely on global
initialization to set X2AVIC_MAX_PHYSICAL_ID, but it's not like this code is
performance critical, and have all paths in one place makes it easy to understand
what the "default" value is.
if (cpu_feature_enabled(X86_FEATURE_X2AVIC_EXT))
x2avic_max_physical_id = X2AVIC_MAX_PHYSICAL_ID_4K;
else
x2avic_max_physical_id = X2AVIC_MAX_PHYSICAL_ID;
> + pr_info("x2AVIC enabled (upto %lld vCPUs)\n", x2avic_max_physical_id + 1);
Maybe s/upto/max?
> + }
>
>
> - Naveen
