WARNING - OLD ARCHIVES

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/
   
 
 
Xen 
 
Home Products Support Community News
 
   
 

xen-devel

Re: [Xen-devel] early_cpu_init() and identify_cpu()

To: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@xxxxxxxxxx>, <xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] early_cpu_init() and identify_cpu()
From: Keir Fraser <keir@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2007 17:26:43 +0100
Delivery-date: Fri, 13 Jul 2007 09:24:37 -0700
Envelope-to: www-data@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <4697C16D.76E4.0078.0@xxxxxxxxxx>
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: AcfFapkm15IwTjFdEdy48QAX8io7RQ==
Thread-topic: [Xen-devel] early_cpu_init() and identify_cpu()
User-agent: Microsoft-Entourage/11.3.3.061214
On 13/7/07 17:16, "Jan Beulich" <jbeulich@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> Is there any reason (other than having things inherited this way from Linux)
> that
> we cannot call identify_cpu() for the boot CPU at the end of early_cpu_init()
> rather than explicitly from __start_xen()? And if not, it would seem
> reasonable
> to me to at once move the two CR4 twiddling pieces out of __start_xen, too.
> 
> (I'm not asking because I want to beautify the code, but because I want the
> identify to happen earlier, namely I want to fully set up the VESA console as
> early as possible, but there I'd like to be able to set MTRRs, which in turn
> depends on identify_cpu() having executed.

Isn't it a fairly safe bet that the BIOS will have done this for us and, if
not, that the penalty is a performance loss (probably using WB or UC instead
of WC) rather than a correctness issue? And hence, if we bother to update
the MTRRs at all, then it can at least be left until later in the boot?

 -- Keir


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