Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v2 2/3] x86/AMD: support further feature masking MSRs

[Boris Ostrovsky <boris.ostrovsky@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On 04/08/2014 10:33 AM, Jan Beulich wrote:
> > > > On 08.04.14 at 16:14, <boris.ostrovsky@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On 04/08/2014 10:02 AM, Jan Beulich wrote:
> > > > > > On 08.04.14 at 15:50, <boris.ostrovsky@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > > On 04/08/2014 03:15 AM, Jan Beulich wrote:
> > > > > > > > On 07.04.14 at 17:21, <boris.ostrovsky@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > > > > On 04/07/2014 05:43 AM, Jan Beulich wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > @@ -179,11 +196,39 @@ static void __devinit set_cpuidmask(cons
> > > > > >         printk("Writing CPUID extended feature mask ECX:EDX -> %08Xh:%08Xh\n",
> > > > > >                extfeat_ecx, extfeat_edx);
> > > > > >      
> > > > > > +	if (c->cpuid_level >= 7)
> > > > > > +               cpuid_count(7, 0, &eax, &ebx, &ecx, &edx);
> > > > > > +       else
> > > > > > +               ebx = eax = 0;
> > > > > > +       if ((eax | ebx) && ~(l7s0_eax & l7s0_ebx)) {
> > > > > > +               if (l7s0_eax > eax)
> > > > > > +                       l7s0_eax = eax;
> > > > > > +               l7s0_ebx &= ebx;
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Can you explain why eax is treated differently here (i.e. not ANDing it
> > > > > > as is done with ebx)?
> > > > > Generally I think code like this implies that you know the specification:
> > > > > eax here represents the maximum supported subleaf, and hence
> > > > > needs to be limited rather than masked.
> > > > All specs that I have say that bits of CPUID Fn0000_0007_EAX_x0 are
> > > > reserved.
> > > Intel's SDM Vol 2 rev 49 (325383-049US) says "07H Sub-leaf 0 (Input
> > > ECX = 0). EAX Bits 31-00: Reports the maximum input value for
> > > supported leaf 7 sub-leaves." Not sure what other specs you might
> > > be looking at.
> > This is a patch to xen/arch/x86/cpu/amd.c so I was looking at AMD's
> > BKDGs.  Why is Intel's definition relevant here?
> Because leaf 7 is (largely) Intel-defined (AMD adds their extensions
> usually at leaves 800000xx).
I don't know whether we can assume that AMD will follow the same 
definitions. They usually try not to deliberately do something 
differently there but this is never guaranteed.
-boris


_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel