[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <6f6bf5b4cfe309914c6f533518ecf5e497f1bd73.camel@linux.intel.com>
Date: Fri, 08 Mar 2019 16:03:24 +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 16/17] kvm: x86: Add support IA32_CORE_CAPABILITY MSR
On Fri, 2019-03-08 at 08:54 +0100, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> On 08/03/19 07:10, Xiaoyao Li wrote:
> > > so that non-virtualizable features are hidden and
> > >
> > > if (boot_cpu_has(X86_FEATURE_SPLIT_LOCK_DETECT))
> > > data |= CORE_CAP_SPLIT_LOCK_DETECT;
> > >
> > > so that userspace gets "for free" the FMS list that will be added
> > > later to the kernel.
> >
> > I think it's redundant. Because there is no case that
> > rdmsrl_safe(MSR_IA32_CORE_CAPABILITY, &data) shows no split lock detection
> > while
> > boot_cpu_has(X86_FEATURE_SPLIT_LOCK_DETECT).
>
> There will be when the kernel will add a list of FMS values that have
> split lock detection but lack the core capabilities MSR. Or at least
> that is what Fenghua said in the cover letter.
>
> Paolo
Got it.
Thanks for your explanation.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists