RE: [Xen-devel] Re: [PATCH] Enable Core 2 Duo PerformanceCounters inHVM guest

["Shan, Haitao" <haitao.shan@xxxxxxxxx>]

Thanks, Keir!

I will rename the file. Actually I mean the Core Architecture here. But it will definitly cause confusions.

Best Regards
Haitao Shan

 

---

From: xen-devel-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:xen-devel-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Keir Fraser
Sent: 2007年12月14日 17:55
To: Shan, Haitao
Cc: xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Jiang, Yunhong
Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] Re: [PATCH] Enable Core 2 Duo PerformanceCounters inHVM guest

1. Shouldn’t the family-specific file be called 
vpmu_core2.c then?

2. Ah yes, actually setup_irq()/request_irq() is not a 
suitable interface. The current code is fine.

 -- Keir

On 
14/12/07 09:32, "Shan, Haitao" <haitao.shan@xxxxxxxxx> 
wrote:

> Is the 
>   virtualisation for Core, or Core 2, or both? 
> Only Core 
>   2. The reason is that Core do not have global control MSR. This MSR is the 
>   only one which will use VMX's HW capability to save and load on 
>   vmentry/vmexit. The benefit is the all the other MSRs can be handled with 
>   software flexibility, like the "lazy load" mechanism.
>
> I don’t 
>   think you need to statically allocate a PMU_VECTOR. request_irq() yourself a 
>   vector when VMX is initialised at boot time. This will avoid touching a bunch 
>   of generic files. 
> But request_irq can not ensure PMU 
>   can be assigned with a high vector. High vector will help to handle PMIs in 
>   time so that gain accurate performance data. 

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel