|
xen-devel
Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] X86: cpuid faulting feature enable
|
To: |
"Liu, Jinsong" <jinsong.liu@xxxxxxxxx>, Jan Beulich <JBeulich@xxxxxxxxxx> |
|
Subject: |
Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] X86: cpuid faulting feature enable |
|
From: |
Keir Fraser <keir.xen@xxxxxxxxx> |
|
Date: |
Fri, 01 Jul 2011 19:02:51 +0100 |
|
Cc: |
"Tian, Kevin" <kevin.tian@xxxxxxxxx>, "xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "Shan, Haitao" <haitao.shan@xxxxxxxxx>, "Li, Xin" <xin.li@xxxxxxxxx> |
|
Delivery-date: |
Fri, 01 Jul 2011 11:04:47 -0700 |
|
Dkim-signature: |
v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=user-agent:date:subject:from:to:cc:message-id:thread-topic :thread-index:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=kP8gwKnqYe/4eOzQZwc4DdUzi8Epux8ibLtOyk5BCTY=; b=jZIiE4um+gG3gJ8DMQj3h0EyFWEGwhvIXV/u/eJacd6pZQTvwQJPMGRkqbpxP5DdTA PD+BqA8LMF9AlFvpBkURv5/xz5bawNwVIXQYg0gPHwq6W1j0WMe/00rzc1dbs6eEZG2C K5Q2lXBOoNsIrQZFdGjycqHw6JacxxSbgHjTM= |
|
Envelope-to: |
www-data@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |
|
In-reply-to: |
<BC00F5384FCFC9499AF06F92E8B78A9E22307FB535@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
|
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> |
|
Sender: |
xen-devel-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |
|
Thread-index: |
Acw4BnepSgQIBTVsRT2C3lT4l/qutAADMoxAAAF1d1c= |
|
Thread-topic: |
[Xen-devel] [PATCH] X86: cpuid faulting feature enable |
|
User-agent: |
Microsoft-Entourage/12.29.0.110113 |
On 01/07/2011 18:48, "Liu, Jinsong" <jinsong.liu@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> Down to a particular stepping? That surely doesn't make sense for
>> anything but your own experimenting.
>
> Yes, it's some ugly.
> Currently cpuid faulting is not a architecturally commited feature, and, some
> other Intel processors (which do not has cpuid faulting feature) also has
> 0xceh MSR.
> Hence I use current way for safe. However, I marked it as FIXME to update in
> the future accordingly.
But Intel's own supporting document states that bit 31 of the PLATFORM_INFO
MSR should be sufficient to identify the cpuid faulting feature. Do you
really need the stepping check as well? Could you just do a rdmsr_safe
read-and-check of PLATFORM_INFO_MSR[31] instead?
It would be okay for other Intel CPUs to have MSR 0xce, so long as they
don't set bit 31...
-- Keir
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
|
|
|
Home