Re: [PATCH 1/2] viridian: remove implicit limit of 64 VPs per partition

[Igor Druzhinin <igor.druzhinin@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On 08/01/2021 08:32, Paul Durrant wrote:
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Igor Druzhinin <igor.druzhinin@xxxxxxxxxx>
>> Sent: 08 January 2021 00:47
>> To: xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> Cc: paul@xxxxxxx; wl@xxxxxxx; iwj@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; anthony.perard@xxxxxxxxxx;
>> andrew.cooper3@xxxxxxxxxx; george.dunlap@xxxxxxxxxx; jbeulich@xxxxxxxx; 
>> julien@xxxxxxx;
>> sstabellini@xxxxxxxxxx; roger.pau@xxxxxxxxxx; Igor Druzhinin 
>> <igor.druzhinin@xxxxxxxxxx>
>> Subject: [PATCH 1/2] viridian: remove implicit limit of 64 VPs per partition
>>
>> TLFS 7.8.1 stipulates that "a virtual processor index must be less than
>> the maximum number of virtual processors per partition" that "can be obtained
>> through CPUID leaf 0x40000005". Furthermore, "Requirements for Implementing
>> the Microsoft Hypervisor Interface" defines that starting from Windows Server
>> 2012, which allowed more than 64 CPUs to be brought up, this leaf can now
>> contain a value -1 basically assuming the hypervisor has no restriction while
>> 0 (that we currently expose) means the default restriction is still present.
>>
>> Along with previous changes exposing ExProcessorMasks this allows a recent
>> Windows VM with Viridian extension enabled to have more than 64 vCPUs without
>> going into immediate BSOD.
>>
> 
> This is very odd as I was happily testing with a 128 vCPU VM once 
> ExProcessorMasks was implemented... no need for the extra leaf.
> The documentation for 0x40000005 states " Describes the scale limits 
> supported in the current hypervisor implementation. If any
> value is zero, the hypervisor does not expose the corresponding information". 
> It does not say (in section 7.8.1 or elsewhere AFAICT)
> what implications that has for VP_INDEX.

The text says that VP_INDEX "must" be below that limit - that is clear enough
for me.

I admit I have not tested with ExProssorMasks exposed but I disabled TLB flush
and IPI extensions before that - Windows is mysterious in it's handling of
this logic. Let me align all of the changes and perform some clean cut testing.

> In " Requirements for Implementing the Microsoft Hypervisor Interface" I 
> don't see anything saying what the semantics of not
> implementing leaf 0x40000005 are, only that if implementing it then -1 must 
> be used to break the 64 VP limit.

Yes, that's exactly the info this change is based on.

> It also says that
> reporting -1 in 0x40000005 means that 40000004.EAX bits 1 and 2 *must* be 
> clear, which is clearly not true if ExProcessorMasks is
> enabled. That document is dated June 13th 2012 so I think it should be taken 
> with a pinch of salt.

True - I assumed that for them to work ExProcessorMasks is necessary then.

Igor