Re: [PATCH v2 3/3] KVM: VMX: Combine "check" and "get" APIs for passthrough MSR lookups

[Dongli Zhang]

On 2/23/24 12:21, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> Combine possible_passthrough_msr_slot() and is_valid_passthrough_msr()
> into a single function, vmx_get_passthrough_msr_slot(), and have the
> combined helper return the slot on success, using a negative value to
> indicate "failure".
> 
> Combining the operations avoids iterating over the array of passthrough
> MSRs twice for relevant MSRs.
> 
> Suggested-by: Dongli Zhang <dongli.zhang@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Signed-off-by: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@xxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
>  arch/x86/kvm/vmx/vmx.c | 63 +++++++++++++++++-------------------------
>  1 file changed, 25 insertions(+), 38 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/vmx/vmx.c b/arch/x86/kvm/vmx/vmx.c
> index 014cf47dc66b..969fd3aa0da3 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/kvm/vmx/vmx.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/kvm/vmx/vmx.c
> @@ -658,25 +658,14 @@ static inline bool cpu_need_virtualize_apic_accesses(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
>  	return flexpriority_enabled && lapic_in_kernel(vcpu);
>  }
>  
> -static int possible_passthrough_msr_slot(u32 msr)
> +static int vmx_get_passthrough_msr_slot(u32 msr)
>  {
> -	u32 i;
> -
> -	for (i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(vmx_possible_passthrough_msrs); i++)
> -		if (vmx_possible_passthrough_msrs[i] == msr)
> -			return i;
> -
> -	return -ENOENT;
> -}
> -
> -static bool is_valid_passthrough_msr(u32 msr)
> -{
> -	bool r;
> +	int i;
>  
>  	switch (msr) {
>  	case 0x800 ... 0x8ff:
>  		/* x2APIC MSRs. These are handled in vmx_update_msr_bitmap_x2apic() */
> -		return true;
> +		return -ENOENT;
>  	case MSR_IA32_RTIT_STATUS:
>  	case MSR_IA32_RTIT_OUTPUT_BASE:
>  	case MSR_IA32_RTIT_OUTPUT_MASK:
> @@ -691,14 +680,16 @@ static bool is_valid_passthrough_msr(u32 msr)
>  	case MSR_LBR_CORE_FROM ... MSR_LBR_CORE_FROM + 8:
>  	case MSR_LBR_CORE_TO ... MSR_LBR_CORE_TO + 8:
>  		/* LBR MSRs. These are handled in vmx_update_intercept_for_lbr_msrs() */
> -		return true;
> +		return -ENOENT;
>  	}
>  
> -	r = possible_passthrough_msr_slot(msr) != -ENOENT;
> -
> -	WARN(!r, "Invalid MSR %x, please adapt vmx_possible_passthrough_msrs[]", msr);
> +	for (i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(vmx_possible_passthrough_msrs); i++) {
> +		if (vmx_possible_passthrough_msrs[i] == msr)
> +			return i;
> +	}
>  
> -	return r;
> +	WARN(1, "Invalid MSR %x, please adapt vmx_possible_passthrough_msrs[]", msr);
> +	return -ENOENT;
>  }
>  
>  struct vmx_uret_msr *vmx_find_uret_msr(struct vcpu_vmx *vmx, u32 msr)
> @@ -3954,6 +3945,7 @@ void vmx_disable_intercept_for_msr(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, u32 msr, int type)
>  {
>  	struct vcpu_vmx *vmx = to_vmx(vcpu);
>  	unsigned long *msr_bitmap = vmx->vmcs01.msr_bitmap;
> +	int idx;
>  
>  	if (!cpu_has_vmx_msr_bitmap())
>  		return;
> @@ -3963,16 +3955,13 @@ void vmx_disable_intercept_for_msr(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, u32 msr, int type)
>  	/*
>  	 * Mark the desired intercept state in shadow bitmap, this is needed
>  	 * for resync when the MSR filters change.
> -	*/
> -	if (is_valid_passthrough_msr(msr)) {
> -		int idx = possible_passthrough_msr_slot(msr);
> -
> -		if (idx != -ENOENT) {
> -			if (type & MSR_TYPE_R)
> -				clear_bit(idx, vmx->shadow_msr_intercept.read);
> -			if (type & MSR_TYPE_W)
> -				clear_bit(idx, vmx->shadow_msr_intercept.write);
> -		}
> +	 */
> +	idx = vmx_get_passthrough_msr_slot(msr);
> +	if (idx >= 0) {
> +		if (type & MSR_TYPE_R)
> +			clear_bit(idx, vmx->shadow_msr_intercept.read);
> +		if (type & MSR_TYPE_W)
> +			clear_bit(idx, vmx->shadow_msr_intercept.write);
>  	}
>  
>  	if ((type & MSR_TYPE_R) &&
> @@ -3998,6 +3987,7 @@ void vmx_enable_intercept_for_msr(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, u32 msr, int type)
>  {
>  	struct vcpu_vmx *vmx = to_vmx(vcpu);
>  	unsigned long *msr_bitmap = vmx->vmcs01.msr_bitmap;
> +	int idx;
>  
>  	if (!cpu_has_vmx_msr_bitmap())
>  		return;
> @@ -4008,15 +3998,12 @@ void vmx_enable_intercept_for_msr(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, u32 msr, int type)
>  	 * Mark the desired intercept state in shadow bitmap, this is needed
>  	 * for resync when the MSR filter changes.
>  	*/

BTW, perhaps fix above the above indentation issue too? I did not notice that
when working on the initial patch.

Thank you very much!

Dongli Zhang