similar to: [PATCH] x86/Intel: don't probe CPUID faulting on family 0xf CPUs

CPUID level 0x00000007:0 (ebx) is word 9, instead of word 7. ... make it consistent with native Linux. Signed-off-by: Li Xin <xin.li@intel.com> diff -r d7c755c25bb9 xen/include/asm-x86/cpufeature.h --- a/xen/include/asm-x86/cpufeature.h Sat May 28 08:58:08 2011 +0100 +++ b/xen/include/asm-x86/cpufeature.h Tue May 31 07:34:34 2011 +0800 @@ -142,7 +142,7 @@ #define X86_FEATURE_TOPOEXT

Hi Andi, Here's a little batch of cleanups: - re-enable VDSO when PARAVIRT is enabled - make the parainstructions symbols match the other altinstructions naming convention - add kernel command-line options to disable altinstructions for smp and pv_ops Oh, and I'm mailing your noreplacement patch back at you, for no particularly good reason. J --

Hi Andi, Here's a little batch of cleanups: - re-enable VDSO when PARAVIRT is enabled - make the parainstructions symbols match the other altinstructions naming convention - add kernel command-line options to disable altinstructions for smp and pv_ops Oh, and I'm mailing your noreplacement patch back at you, for no particularly good reason. J --

On Tue, Apr 28, 2020 at 05:17:14PM +0200, Joerg Roedel wrote: > From: Mike Stunes <mstunes at vmware.com> > > To avoid a future VMEXIT for a subsequent CPUID function, cache the > results returned by CPUID into an xarray. > > [tl: coding standard changes, register zero extension] > > Signed-off-by: Mike Stunes <mstunes at vmware.com> > Signed-off-by: Tom

On Tue, Apr 28, 2020 at 05:17:14PM +0200, Joerg Roedel wrote: > From: Mike Stunes <mstunes at vmware.com> > > To avoid a future VMEXIT for a subsequent CPUID function, cache the > results returned by CPUID into an xarray. > > [tl: coding standard changes, register zero extension] > > Signed-off-by: Mike Stunes <mstunes at vmware.com> > Signed-off-by: Tom

With the x86 instruction emulator no pretty complete, I''d like to re-submit this patch to support cmpxchg16b on x86-64 and at once rename the underlying emulator callback function pointer (making clear that if implemented, it is to operate on two longs rather than two 32-bit values). At the same time it fixes an apparently wrong emulator context initialization in the shadow code.

From: Borislav Petkov <bp at suse.de> Using static_cpu_has() is pointless on those paths, convert them to the boot_cpu_has() variant. No functional changes. Reported-by: Nadav Amit <nadav.amit at gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Borislav Petkov <bp at suse.de> Cc: Aubrey Li <aubrey.li at intel.com> Cc: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen at intel.com> Cc: Dominik Brodowski <linux

Hi, All: Does the guest OS need to detect hyperthreading? One would think that the hypervisor decides what to schedule on what CPU, and the job of the guest is not to be too smart for its own good. So, my first reaction was to comment detect_ht() altogether. Fedora Core 5 has the code in detect_ht(), though I have no idea what the results of this are on HT CPUs, if they match the reality.

- use __clear_bit() rather than clear_bit() - use switch statements instead of long series of if-s - eliminate pointless casts (Applies cleanly only on top of the previously sent SVM/EFER patch.) Signed-off-by: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@novell.com> Index: 2007-08-08/xen/arch/x86/hvm/hvm.c =================================================================== ---

From: Borislav Petkov <bp at suse.de> Use boot_cpu_has() instead. Signed-off-by: Borislav Petkov <bp at suse.de> Cc: virtualization at lists.linux-foundation.org Cc: sparmaintainer at unisys.com --- arch/x86/events/intel/cstate.c | 2 +- arch/x86/events/intel/uncore.c | 2 +- arch/x86/include/asm/cpufeature.h | 1 -

From: Borislav Petkov <bp at suse.de> Use boot_cpu_has() instead. Signed-off-by: Borislav Petkov <bp at suse.de> Cc: virtualization at lists.linux-foundation.org Cc: sparmaintainer at unisys.com --- arch/x86/events/intel/cstate.c | 2 +- arch/x86/events/intel/uncore.c | 2 +- arch/x86/include/asm/cpufeature.h | 1 -

The first patch really isn''t as much of a follow-up than what triggered the security issues to be noticed in the first place. 1: x86: preserve FPU selectors for 32-bit guest code 2: x86: fix XCR0 handling 3: x86/xsave: adjust state management 4: x86/fxsave: bring in line with recent xsave adjustments The first two I would see as candidates for 4.3 (as well as subsequent backporting,

>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,

This follows Linux commit 39fe05e58c5e448601ce46e6b03900d5bf31c4b0, noticing that all this setup is pointless when ARAT support is there, and knowing that on SLED11''s native kernel it has actually caused S3 resume issues. A question would be whether HPET legacy interrupts should be forced off in this case (rather than leaving whatever came from firmware). Signed-off-by: Jan Beulich

This is a bug fixing. So it needs go into 4.1. x86: add volatile prefix for cpuid asm clauses cpuid results are possible to be changed now. For example, changing CR4.OSXSAVE bit or setting MSR XCR_XFEATURE_ENABLED_MASK may change XSAVE related cpuid leave return values. The volatile prefix is required to avoid the second cpuid calls following some possible changing operations being optimized in

On 03/19/2014 06:07 AM, Paolo Bonzini wrote: > Il 19/03/2014 04:15, Waiman Long ha scritto: >>>> You should see the same values with the PV ticketlock. It is not clear >>>> to me if this testing did include that variant of locks? >>> >>> Yes, PV is fine. But up to this point of the series, we are concerned >>> about spinlock performance when

On 03/19/2014 06:07 AM, Paolo Bonzini wrote: > Il 19/03/2014 04:15, Waiman Long ha scritto: >>>> You should see the same values with the PV ticketlock. It is not clear >>>> to me if this testing did include that variant of locks? >>> >>> Yes, PV is fine. But up to this point of the series, we are concerned >>> about spinlock performance when

(Applies cleanly only on top of the previously sent SVM/LBR patch.) Signed-off-by: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@novell.com> Index: 2007-08-08/xen/arch/x86/hvm/svm/svm.c =================================================================== --- 2007-08-08.orig/xen/arch/x86/hvm/svm/svm.c 2007-08-08 11:40:11.000000000 +0200 +++ 2007-08-08/xen/arch/x86/hvm/svm/svm.c 2007-08-08 11:43:53.000000000 +0200

On Tue, May 19, 2020 at 10:16:37PM -0700, Sean Christopherson wrote: > The whole cache on-demand approach seems like overkill. The number of CPUID > leaves that are invoked after boot with any regularity can probably be counted > on one hand. IIRC glibc invokes CPUID to gather TLB/cache info, XCR0-based > features, and one or two other leafs. A statically sized global array

On 03/18/2014 04:14 AM, Paolo Bonzini wrote: > Il 17/03/2014 20:05, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk ha scritto: >>> > Measurements were done by Gleb for two guests running 2.6.32 with 16 >>> > vcpus each, on a 16-core system. One guest ran with unfair locks, >>> > one guest ran with fair locks. Two kernel compilations ("time make >> And when you say fair