[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <49AB24E0.5020604@zytor.com>
Date: Sun, 01 Mar 2009 16:14:24 -0800
From: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
To: Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org>
CC: Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Xen-devel <xen-devel@...ts.xensource.com>,
the arch/x86 maintainers <x86@...nel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] xen: core dom0 support
Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote:
> H. Peter Anvin wrote:
>> In this particular case, this is actually false. "No PAT" in the
>> processor is *not* the same thing as "no cacheability controls in the
>> page tables". Every processor since the 386 has had UC, WT, and WB
>> controls in the page tables; PAT only added the ability to do WC (and
>> WP, which we don't use). Since the number of processors which can do
>> WC at all but don't have PAT is a small set of increasingly obsolete
>> processors, we may very well choose to simply ignore the WC
>> capabilities of these particular processors.
>
> I'm not quite sure what you're referring to with "this is actually
> false". Certainly we support cachability control in ptes under Xen. We
> just don't support full PAT because Xen uses PAT for itself.
>
What do you define as "full PAT"? If what you mean is that Xen lays
claims to the PAT MSR and only allows a certain mapping that's hardly a
problem... other than that it's not an exhaustible resource so I guess I
really don't understand what you're trying to say here.
-hpa
--
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