Messages in this thread |  | | | From | "Nakajima, Jun" <> | | Date | Fri, 26 Sep 2008 17:59:06 -0700 | | Subject | RE: Use CPUID to communicate with the hypervisor. |
| |
On 9/26/2008 5:32:26 PM, H. Peter Anvin wrote: > Alok Kataria wrote: > > > > > > > This is great, obviously... although we'll have to deal with > > > legacy methods for a while if not indefinitely (just as we have to > > > for pre-CPUID processors). > > > > Ok, do you think we should keep those (legacy) interfaces separate > > so that they can be phased out whenever the time is right. > > > > I don't, realistically, think we can phase them out for a very long > time, and then it's usually a "why bother". What we want to do is > abstract them so they don't make the rest of the code suck. > > > > > I would like to see this as a generic hypervisor way to get > > frequency rather than a VMware specific thingy. > > > In order for *that* to be safe, you'd have to have well-defined > > > ranges for different virtualization vendors where each of them can > > > define their own stuff. > > > > My motivation for doing this is to have a standard across all the > > hypervisor's. If all the different hypervisor guys can come to some > > sought of consensus on the various hypervisor leafs that would help > > keep this simple and a lot more maintainable. > > > > Agreed. However, that's obviously beyond our immediate control.
Well, actually it's under full control of the Linux community because the _kernel_ defines such virtual or semi-hardware features. I'm not sure if that particular value (0x40000010) is proper, but we should be able to pick reasonable ones/ranges. > > -hpa . Jun Nakajima | Intel Open Source Technology Center |  |