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

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

Hi, Keir,

 

I have carefully checked my coding style according to your comments.

For those which contained hard TABs originally, I only updated what was touched by my patch.

Do you have any comments?

 

Thanks!

 

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.

 

pmu.patch
Description: pmu.patch

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