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] Allow dom0 to write MSR IA32_ENERGY_PERF_BIAS

To: Jan Beulich <JBeulich@xxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: RE: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] Allow dom0 to write MSR IA32_ENERGY_PERF_BIAS
From: "Wei, Gang" <gang.wei@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 5 Jan 2011 10:08:00 +0800
Accept-language: zh-CN, en-US
Acceptlanguage: zh-CN, en-US
Cc: "xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Keir Fraser <Keir.Fraser@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "Wei, Gang" <gang.wei@xxxxxxxxx>
Delivery-date: Tue, 04 Jan 2011 18:11:05 -0800
Envelope-to: www-data@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <4D22FD64020000780002A29B@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
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/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>, <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=subscribe>
List-unsubscribe: <http://lists.xensource.com/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>, <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=unsubscribe>
References: <F26D193E20BBDC42A43B611D1BDEDE712514228C79@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <4D22FD64020000780002A29B@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sender: xen-devel-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Thread-index: Acur9gqjUmMKWhUBSeanCl+1dhEv6AAgMw0A
Thread-topic: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] Allow dom0 to write MSR IA32_ENERGY_PERF_BIAS
Jan Beulich wrote on 2011-01-04:
>> diff -r 4e108cf56d07 xen/arch/x86/traps.c
>> --- a/xen/arch/x86/traps.c   Mon Dec 27 08:00:09 2010 +0000
>> +++ b/xen/arch/x86/traps.c   Sat Jan 01 20:01:43 2011 +0800
>> @@ -2333,6 +2333,7 @@ static int emulate_privileged_op(struct
>>                  goto fail;
>>              break;
>>          case MSR_IA32_THERM_CONTROL:
>> +        case MSR_IA32_ENERGY_PERF_BIAS:
>>              if ( boot_cpu_data.x86_vendor != X86_VENDOR_INTEL )
>>                  goto fail;
>>              if ( (v->domain->domain_id != 0) ||
>> !v->domain->is_pinned
>> )
> Why would you allow this only if Dom0 has its vcpus pinned?

It is meaningless if dom0 can't control all pcpus exactly. Only in case of dom0 
vcpus pinned, it makes sense.


Xen-devel mailing list