Xen devel - May 2008 - [PATCH] Enable Px/Cx related CPUID/MSR bits for dom0

Enable Px/Cx related CPUID/MSR bits for dom0 to get correct Px/Cx info.

Signed-off-by: Wei Gang <gang.wei@intel.com>


_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel

Applied your patches, but why would you expose MWAIT as a usable feature?
Maybe worth a comment explaining that, as otherwise it''s not unlikely
to be
cleaned up as a ''mistake'' sometime in the future.

 -- Keir

On 5/5/08 06:41, "Wei, Gang" <gang.wei@intel.com> wrote:
> Enable Px/Cx related CPUID/MSR bits for dom0 to get correct Px/Cx info.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Wei Gang <gang.wei@intel.com>


_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel

On Monday, May 05, 2008 5:27 PM, Keir Fraser wrote:
> Applied your patches, but why would you expose MWAIT as a usable
feature?

I can''t exactly tell why. What I am sure is that X86_FEATURE_EST should
be exposed, otherwise ACPI _CST method invoking in dom0 will always
failed. MWAIT feature & MSR_IA32_MISC_ENABLE_MONITOR_ENABLE bit are
exposed just in case of possible needs. If I could make sure MWAIT
feature & MONITOR_ENABLE are not needed, I will send patch to remove
them.
> Maybe worth a comment explaining that, as otherwise it''s not
unlikely
to
> be cleaned up as a ''mistake'' sometime in the future.
Ok, I will add comment after I can explain clearly.

Jimmy

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel

I''ll remove them and you can add them back in with a comment if they
turn
out to be required.

 -- Keir

On 5/5/08 16:48, "Wei, Gang" <gang.wei@intel.com> wrote:
> On Monday, May 05, 2008 5:27 PM, Keir Fraser wrote:
>> Applied your patches, but why would you expose MWAIT as a usable
> feature?
> 
> I can''t exactly tell why. What I am sure is that X86_FEATURE_EST
should
> be exposed, otherwise ACPI _CST method invoking in dom0 will always
> failed. MWAIT feature & MSR_IA32_MISC_ENABLE_MONITOR_ENABLE bit are
> exposed just in case of possible needs. If I could make sure MWAIT
> feature & MONITOR_ENABLE are not needed, I will send patch to remove
> them.
> 
>> Maybe worth a comment explaining that, as otherwise it''s not
unlikely
> to
>> be cleaned up as a ''mistake'' sometime in the future.
> 
> Ok, I will add comment after I can explain clearly.
> 
> Jimmy


_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel

That is ok. Please do keep X86_FEATURE_EST feature.

Jimmy

On Tuesday, May 06, 2008 12:05 AM, Keir Fraser wrote:
> I''ll remove them and you can add them back in with a comment if
they
turn
> out to be required.
> 
>  -- Keir
> 
> On 5/5/08 16:48, "Wei, Gang" <gang.wei@intel.com> wrote:
> 
>> On Monday, May 05, 2008 5:27 PM, Keir Fraser wrote:
>>> Applied your patches, but why would you expose MWAIT as a usable
>>> feature? 
>> 
>> I can''t exactly tell why. What I am sure is that
X86_FEATURE_EST
should
>> be exposed, otherwise ACPI _CST method invoking in dom0 will always
>> failed. MWAIT feature & MSR_IA32_MISC_ENABLE_MONITOR_ENABLE bit are
>> exposed just in case of possible needs. If I could make sure MWAIT
>> feature & MONITOR_ENABLE are not needed, I will send patch to
remove
>> them. 
>> 
>>> Maybe worth a comment explaining that, as otherwise it''s
not
unlikely to
>>> be cleaned up as a ''mistake'' sometime in the
future.
>> 
>> Ok, I will add comment after I can explain clearly.
>> 
>> Jimmy
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel