search for: cpuid_edx

...t;dx" ); - return ebx; -} -static inline unsigned int cpuid_ecx(unsigned int op) -{ - unsigned int eax, ecx; - - __asm__("cpuid" - : "=a" (eax), "=c" (ecx) - : "0" (op) - : "bx", "dx" ); - return ecx; -} -static inline unsigned int cpuid_edx(unsigned int op) -{ - unsigned int eax, edx; - - __asm__("cpuid" - : "=a" (eax), "=d" (edx) - : "0" (op) - : "bx", "cx"); - return edx; -} - -#define load_cr3(pgdir) write_cr3(__pa(pgdir)) - -/* * Intel CPU features in CR4 */ #defi...

...t;dx" ); - return ebx; -} -static inline unsigned int cpuid_ecx(unsigned int op) -{ - unsigned int eax, ecx; - - __asm__("cpuid" - : "=a" (eax), "=c" (ecx) - : "0" (op) - : "bx", "dx" ); - return ecx; -} -static inline unsigned int cpuid_edx(unsigned int op) -{ - unsigned int eax, edx; - - __asm__("cpuid" - : "=a" (eax), "=d" (edx) - : "0" (op) - : "bx", "cx"); - return edx; -} - -#define load_cr3(pgdir) write_cr3(__pa(pgdir)) - -/* * Intel CPU features in CR4 */ #defi...

>From /xen-unstable.hg/xen/arch/x86/cpu/intel.c if ((c->x86 == 0xf && c->x86_model >= 0x03) || (c->x86 == 0x6 && c->x86_model >= 0x0e)) set_bit(X86_FEATURE_CONSTANT_TSC, c->x86_capability); if (cpuid_edx(0x80000007) & (1u<<8)) { set_bit(X86_FEATURE_CONSTANT_TSC, c->x86_capability); set_bit(X86_FEATURE_NONSTOP_TSC, c->x86_capability); set_bit(X86_FEATURE_TSC_RELIABLE, c->x86_capability); } I am trying to determine the difference between the constant vs nonstop vs invariant...

...(s->vram_shadow == NULL) + return 1; + vp = (long *)(s->vram_ptr + offset); + sp = (long *)(s->vram_shadow + offset); + while ((n -= sizeof(*vp)) >= 0) + if (*vp++ != *sp++) { + memcpy(sp - 1, vp - 1, n + sizeof(*vp)); + return 1; + } + return 0; +} + +static inline unsigned int cpuid_edx(unsigned int op) +{ + unsigned int eax, edx; + + __asm__("cpuid" + : "=a" (eax), "=d" (edx) + : "0" (op) + : "bx", "cx"); + return edx; +} + +jmp_buf sse_jbuf; + +void intr(int sig) +{ + + sse2_ok = 0; + longjmp(sse_jbuf, 1); + return;...

...index aad4bd8..6d172a2 100644 --- a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/mshyperv.c +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/mshyperv.c @@ -114,6 +114,7 @@ static void __init ms_hyperv_init_platform(void) * Extract the features and hints */ ms_hyperv.features = cpuid_eax(HYPERV_CPUID_FEATURES); + ms_hyperv.misc_features = cpuid_edx(HYPERV_CPUID_FEATURES); ms_hyperv.hints = cpuid_eax(HYPERV_CPUID_ENLIGHTMENT_INFO); printk(KERN_INFO "HyperV: features 0x%x, hints 0x%x\n", diff --git a/drivers/hv/vmbus_drv.c b/drivers/hv/vmbus_drv.c index cf20400..67af13a 100644 --- a/drivers/hv/vmbus_drv.c +++ b/drivers/hv/vmb...

...index aad4bd8..6d172a2 100644 --- a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/mshyperv.c +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/mshyperv.c @@ -114,6 +114,7 @@ static void __init ms_hyperv_init_platform(void) * Extract the features and hints */ ms_hyperv.features = cpuid_eax(HYPERV_CPUID_FEATURES); + ms_hyperv.misc_features = cpuid_edx(HYPERV_CPUID_FEATURES); ms_hyperv.hints = cpuid_eax(HYPERV_CPUID_ENLIGHTMENT_INFO); printk(KERN_INFO "HyperV: features 0x%x, hints 0x%x\n", diff --git a/drivers/hv/vmbus_drv.c b/drivers/hv/vmbus_drv.c index cf20400..67af13a 100644 --- a/drivers/hv/vmbus_drv.c +++ b/drivers/hv/vmb...

I stumbled across the following patch and wondered if it wouldn't be a good idea to have it included. http://foldingcd.svn.sourceforge.net/viewvc/*checkout*/foldingcd/trunk/folding_cd/patches/syslinux-3.51-64bit.patch?revision=5 It adds a default64 keyword and detection of a 64bit processor. It could be useful for mixed environments. The patch is against 3.51, but looks like it would port

...- unsigned int eax, ebx, ecx, edx; - - cpuid(op, &eax, &ebx, &ecx, &edx); - return ebx; -} -static inline unsigned int cpuid_ecx(unsigned int op) -{ - unsigned int eax, ebx, ecx, edx; - - cpuid(op, &eax, &ebx, &ecx, &edx); - return ecx; -} -static inline unsigned int cpuid_edx(unsigned int op) -{ - unsigned int eax, ebx, ecx, edx; - - cpuid(op, &eax, &ebx, &ecx, &edx); - return edx; -} - #define load_cr3(pgdir) write_cr3(__pa(pgdir)) /* @@ -505,18 +445,6 @@ struct thread_struct { .io_bitmap = { [ 0 ... IO_BITMAP_LONGS] = ~0 }, \ } -#ifndef CONFI...

...- unsigned int eax, ebx, ecx, edx; - - cpuid(op, &eax, &ebx, &ecx, &edx); - return ebx; -} -static inline unsigned int cpuid_ecx(unsigned int op) -{ - unsigned int eax, ebx, ecx, edx; - - cpuid(op, &eax, &ebx, &ecx, &edx); - return ecx; -} -static inline unsigned int cpuid_edx(unsigned int op) -{ - unsigned int eax, ebx, ecx, edx; - - cpuid(op, &eax, &ebx, &ecx, &edx); - return edx; -} - #define load_cr3(pgdir) write_cr3(__pa(pgdir)) /* @@ -505,18 +445,6 @@ struct thread_struct { .io_bitmap = { [ 0 ... IO_BITMAP_LONGS] = ~0 }, \ } -#ifndef CONFI...

...ecx; - - __asm__("cpuid" - : "=a" (eax), "=c" (ecx) - : "0" (op) - : "bx", "dx" ); + unsigned int eax, ebx, ecx, edx; + eax = op; + ecx = 0; + __cpuid(&eax, &ebx, &ecx, &edx); return ecx; } static inline unsigned int cpuid_edx(unsigned int op) { - unsigned int eax, edx; - - __asm__("cpuid" - : "=a" (eax), "=d" (edx) - : "0" (op) - : "bx", "cx"); + unsigned int eax, ebx, ecx, edx; + eax = op; + ecx = 0; + __cpuid(&eax, &ebx, &ecx, &edx); ret...

...ecx; - - __asm__("cpuid" - : "=a" (eax), "=c" (ecx) - : "0" (op) - : "bx", "dx" ); + unsigned int eax, ebx, ecx, edx; + eax = op; + ecx = 0; + __cpuid(&eax, &ebx, &ecx, &edx); return ecx; } static inline unsigned int cpuid_edx(unsigned int op) { - unsigned int eax, edx; - - __asm__("cpuid" - : "=a" (eax), "=d" (edx) - : "0" (op) - : "bx", "cx"); + unsigned int eax, ebx, ecx, edx; + eax = op; + ecx = 0; + __cpuid(&eax, &ebx, &ecx, &edx); ret...

Hello, This series of patches integrates msr.h header. What it really does, is a series of steps to allow us to get rid of duplicate code between i386 and x86_64 versions With this done, achieving paravirt for x86_64 gets really easy, just a couple of extra code. The first patch was already sent a while ago, but was not yet pushed to any tree , to my knowledge. So it is sent again. Also,

Hello, This series of patches integrates msr.h header. What it really does, is a series of steps to allow us to get rid of duplicate code between i386 and x86_64 versions With this done, achieving paravirt for x86_64 gets really easy, just a couple of extra code. The first patch was already sent a while ago, but was not yet pushed to any tree , to my knowledge. So it is sent again. Also,

...x2apic\n", + apicid); return 0; } - pr_warning("x2apic already enabled.\n"); + pr_warn("x2apic already enabled\n"); __x2apic_disable(); } setup_clear_cpu_cap(X86_FEATURE_X2APIC); @@ -1684,7 +1684,7 @@ static int __init apic_verify(void) */ features = cpuid_edx(1); if (!(features & (1 << X86_FEATURE_APIC))) { - pr_warning("Could not enable APIC!\n"); + pr_warn("Could not enable APIC!\n"); return -1; } set_cpu_cap(&boot_cpu_data, X86_FEATURE_APIC); @@ -2102,9 +2102,8 @@ int __generic_processor_info(int apicid, i...

...ax, ebx, ecx, edx; + eax = op; __cpuid(&eax, &ebx, &ecx, &edx); return ebx; } static inline unsigned int cpuid_ecx(unsigned int op) { unsigned int eax, ebx, ecx, edx; + eax = op; __cpuid(&eax, &ebx, &ecx, &edx); return ecx; } static inline unsigned int cpuid_edx(unsigned int op) { unsigned int eax, ebx, ecx, edx; + eax = op; __cpuid(&eax, &ebx, &ecx, &edx); return edx; } diff -urp linux-2.6.19-paravirt0/include/asm-x86_64/paravirt.h linux-2.6.19-paravirt1/include/asm-x86_64/paravirt.h --- linux-2.6.19-paravirt0/include/asm-x86_64/pa...

...ax, ebx, ecx, edx; + eax = op; __cpuid(&eax, &ebx, &ecx, &edx); return ebx; } static inline unsigned int cpuid_ecx(unsigned int op) { unsigned int eax, ebx, ecx, edx; + eax = op; __cpuid(&eax, &ebx, &ecx, &edx); return ecx; } static inline unsigned int cpuid_edx(unsigned int op) { unsigned int eax, ebx, ecx, edx; + eax = op; __cpuid(&eax, &ebx, &ecx, &edx); return edx; } diff -urp linux-2.6.19-paravirt0/include/asm-x86_64/paravirt.h linux-2.6.19-paravirt1/include/asm-x86_64/paravirt.h --- linux-2.6.19-paravirt0/include/asm-x86_64/pa...

Hi Andrew, This series of patches lays the basic ground work for the paravirtualized kernel patches coming later on. I think this lot is ready for the rough-and-tumble world of the -mm tree. The main change from the last posting is that all the page-table related patches have been moved out, and will be posted separately. Also, the off-by-one in reserving the top of address space has been

Hi Andrew, This series of patches lays the basic ground work for the paravirtualized kernel patches coming later on. I think this lot is ready for the rough-and-tumble world of the -mm tree. The main change from the last posting is that all the page-table related patches have been moved out, and will be posted separately. Also, the off-by-one in reserving the top of address space has been

Hi all, I've been looking at finding common ground between the VMI, Xen and other paravirtualization approaches, and after some discussion, we're getting somewhere. These first two patches are the fundamentals, stolen mainly from the VMI patches: removing assumptions about the kernel running in ring 0, and macro-izing all the obvious para-virtualize-needing insns. The third patch is

Hi all, I've been looking at finding common ground between the VMI, Xen and other paravirtualization approaches, and after some discussion, we're getting somewhere. These first two patches are the fundamentals, stolen mainly from the VMI patches: removing assumptions about the kernel running in ring 0, and macro-izing all the obvious para-virtualize-needing insns. The third patch is