[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20080908140939.GH11993@elte.hu>
Date: Mon, 8 Sep 2008 16:09:39 +0200
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To: Sheng Yang <sheng.yang@...el.com>
Cc: Avi Kivity <avi@...ranet.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 0/2] x86: Add "virt flags"
* Sheng Yang <sheng.yang@...el.com> wrote:
> Hi, Ingo
>
> (sorry for former noises, I mistake the address... Report to lkml)
> I've sent this patchset before, but got no comments from upstream at
> that time. So I'd like to resend this.
>
> The virt flags is used for the important hardware virtualization
> features, like EPT of incoming Nehalem. Because the feature
> availability are read from MSRs, and I think virtualization features
> should not at the same level as "vmx", so I added a new flags catagory
> here.
>
> But I still have concern, for this may broke some not that reliable
> userspace programs. So Avi suggested that we can add more fields to
> flags rather than a new catagory. What's your opinion? We indeed need
> a generic user visible way to tell the HW virtualization features.
hm, i think extending the already existing flags category sounds like a
better solution than the separate virtual CPU flags line in
/proc/cpuinfo. We already have self-invented flag entries (such as
X86_FEATURE_NOPL), and adding more for virtualization would be quite
natural to do, as long as it's reasonably close to the meaning of a 'CPU
feature'.
Peter, what would be your preference?
Ingo
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists