[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <5a9b82659ace27ea03b3c16fc91fdad03fbc32ea.camel@linux.intel.com>
Date: Mon, 04 Mar 2019 19:21:06 +0800
From: Xiaoyao Li <xiaoyao.li@...ux.intel.com>
To: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
Fenghua Yu <fenghua.yu@...el.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
H Peter Anvin <hpa@...or.com>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>,
Ashok Raj <ashok.raj@...el.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Ravi V Shankar <ravi.v.shankar@...el.com>
Cc: linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, x86 <x86@...nel.org>,
kvm@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 15/17] kvm: x86: Report CORE_CAPABILITY on
GET_SUPPORTED_CPUID
On Mon, 2019-03-04 at 12:14 +0100, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> On 04/03/19 12:10, Xiaoyao Li wrote:
> > Like you said before, I think we don't need the condition judgment
> > "if(boot_cpu_has(X86_FEATURE_SPLIT_LOCK_DETECT))", but to set
> > F(CORE_CAPABILITY)
> > always for guest since MSR_IA32_CORE_CAPABILITY is emulated.
> >
> > And we should set the right emulated value of MSR_IA32_CORE_CAPABILITY for
> > guest
> > in function kvm_get_core_capability() based on whether
> > boot_cpu_has(X86_FEATURE_SPLIT_LOCK_DETECT) just as you commented in the
> > next
> > patch.
>
> Yes, that would certainly be better. However, you'd also have to move
> MSR_IA32_CORE_CAPABILITY handling to x86.c, because you'd have to enable
> X86_FEATURE_CORE_CAPABILITY for AMD.
>
> Paolo
Thanks for your comments and advises.
I'll do it in next version.
Xiaoyao
Powered by blists - more mailing lists