[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Xen-devel] Guest-vs-Host MTRR/PAT conflict and a crash?

  • To: David Stone <unclestoner@xxxxxxxxx>
  • From: Keir Fraser <Keir.Fraser@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2007 23:55:40 +0000
  • Cc: Xen Developers <xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Delivery-date: Fri, 14 Dec 2007 15:49:21 -0800
  • List-id: Xen developer discussion <xen-devel.lists.xensource.com>
  • Thread-index: Acg+rNR4EuJqfKqgEdyYUQAWy6hiGQ==
  • Thread-topic: [Xen-devel] Guest-vs-Host MTRR/PAT conflict and a crash?

On 14/12/07 22:43, "David Stone" <unclestoner@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> Regarding which, how areyou resolving 0x0400 in the status register to
> 'CPU internal timer error'?  I'm looking at the "System Programming"
> Intel manual and it seems to indicate that an Error Code with bits
> 0000 01xx xxxx xxxx (like 0x0400) is an "Internal Unclassified" error.

I was looking at the very latest manual (Vol 3A, Nov 2007). It provides a
more specific decoding for 0000 0100 0000 0000.

> For machine-checks, is there the notion of protecting the hypervisor
> from problems encountered in the HVM guest?  I.e., if a #MC happens
> when a guest is executing (non-root mode), is the host equally
> screwed?  I'm guessing not if it is the nature of a #MC is such that
> it is the processor itself that is screwed, not any particular level
> of hardware?

If a #MC happens, it's bad news!

> Finally, one thing I'm still not sure about is exactly what PCI
> devices (as identified by B:D:F) I should hide from Dom0 and pass
> through to the guest.  For my machine, the PCI topology as seen from
> Dom0 is:

I'm not an expert on PCI topologies I'm afraid. :-(

 -- Keir

Xen-devel mailing list



Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our
servers 24x7x365 and backed by RackSpace's Fanatical Support®.