[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4CA231A8.5000100@zytor.com>
Date: Tue, 28 Sep 2010 11:19:20 -0700
From: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
To: Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org>
CC: Stefano Stabellini <stefano.stabellini@...citrix.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"xen-devel@...ts.xensource.com" <xen-devel@...ts.xensource.com>,
Jeremy Fitzhardinge <Jeremy.Fitzhardinge@...rix.com>,
"sct@...hat.com" <sct@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 12/12] xen/mtrr: Add mtrr_if support for Xen mtrr
On 09/28/2010 11:13 AM, Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote:
> On 09/28/2010 10:56 AM, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
>> On 09/28/2010 10:13 AM, Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote:
>>> Yes, we could just mask out the MTRR CPU feature and rely entirely on PAT.
>>>
>>> The alternative would be to use the wrmsr hooks to emulate the Intel
>>> MTRR registers by mapping them to hypercalls, but that seems needlessly
>>> complex.
>>>
>> Indeed. Relying on pure PAT is the Right Thing[TM].
>
> Is there a plan to formally deprecate /proc/mtrr and the kernel
> infrastructure behind it?
>
No, and we really can't do it for a couple of reasons:
a) Pre-PAT hardware;
b) MTRRs and PAT interact on hardware;
c) MTRRs, but not PAT, interact with SMM.
However, since a virtual machine like Xen doesn't have these issues, it
doesn't apply.
-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