[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v1] x86/msr: add Raw and Host domain policies
On Thu, 2018-02-15 at 06:33 -0700, Jan Beulich wrote: > > > > On 08.02.18 at 11:23, <sergey.dyasli@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > --- a/xen/arch/x86/cpu/common.c > > +++ b/xen/arch/x86/cpu/common.c > > @@ -118,9 +118,18 @@ void (* __read_mostly ctxt_switch_masking)(const > > struct vcpu *next); > > > > bool __init probe_cpuid_faulting(void) > > { > > + struct msr_domain_policy *dp = &raw_msr_domain_policy; > > Unless you foresee the variable to be needed for further things > here, could this be moved into the more narrow scope it's used in > please? Will do in v2. > > uint64_t val; > > + int rc; > > > > - if (rdmsr_safe(MSR_INTEL_PLATFORM_INFO, val) || > > + if ((rc = rdmsr_safe(MSR_INTEL_PLATFORM_INFO, val)) == 0) > > + { > > + dp->plaform_info.available = true; > > + if (val & MSR_PLATFORM_INFO_CPUID_FAULTING) > > + dp->plaform_info.cpuid_faulting = true; > > + } > > + > > + if (rc || > > !(val & MSR_PLATFORM_INFO_CPUID_FAULTING) || > > rdmsr_safe(MSR_INTEL_MISC_FEATURES_ENABLES, > > this_cpu(msr_misc_features))) > > Below here we have > > setup_clear_cpu_cap(X86_FEATURE_CPUID_FAULTING); > > Shouldn't this be reflected in the host policy? I guess the correct thing to do for now for host_msr_domain_policy is: dp->plaform_info.cpuid_faulting = cpu_has_cpuid_faulting; Looking at the code, calculate_pv_max_policy() will be simplified with the above change: pv_max_msr_domain_policy will become a copy of host policy. This actually brings a question: what to do about per-pCPU MSRs in the context of MSR policy? -- Thanks, Sergey _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel
|
Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our |