This is an archived copy of the Xen.org mailing list, which we have preserved to ensure that existing links to archives are not broken. The live archive, which contains the latest emails, can be found at http://lists.xen.org/
Home Products Support Community News


Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] [HVM][SVM] Handle threshold register for guests

To: "Petersson, Mats" <Mats.Petersson@xxxxxxx>, "Egger, Christoph" <Christoph.Egger@xxxxxxx>, <xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] [HVM][SVM] Handle threshold register for guests
From: Keir Fraser <keir@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 24 May 2007 13:20:49 +0100
Delivery-date: Thu, 24 May 2007 05:19:20 -0700
Envelope-to: www-data@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <907625E08839C4409CE5768403633E0B02561D29@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
List-help: <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=help>
List-id: Xen developer discussion <xen-devel.lists.xensource.com>
List-post: <mailto:xen-devel@lists.xensource.com>
List-subscribe: <http://lists.xensource.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>, <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=subscribe>
List-unsubscribe: <http://lists.xensource.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>, <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=unsubscribe>
Sender: xen-devel-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Thread-index: Aced8K6U7RWhwgnjEdyL+wAX8io7RQAAOERwAAMZso4=
Thread-topic: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] [HVM][SVM] Handle threshold register for guests
User-agent: Microsoft-Entourage/
On 24/5/07 12:00, "Petersson, Mats" <Mats.Petersson@xxxxxxx> wrote:

> Yes, you're looking in the wrong place the APM is for "generic
> functionality", the BIOS and Kernel Developer's Guide (BKDG) is more
> specific as to implementation details for the different generations, and
> on page 225 [public version], you'll find the details of this register.
> http://www.amd.com/us-en/assets/content_type/white_papers_and_tech_docs/
> 32559.pdf
> As to whether the processor expects this behaviour or not is a different
> question. But let's say they use the family/model CPUID info to identify
> if this feature is available or not, rather than the more loosely
> coupled feature-bit of SVM (e.g. a Sempron Rev F processor would have
> the functionality in this register, but no SVM bit set as it's not got
> SVM-feature). 
> I think the patch is OK to support any future OS that MAY try to use
> this register. It's not harming anything, right?

I'll take another look. I think the patch will be fine.

 -- Keir

Xen-devel mailing list