lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2012]   [Jul]   [3]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [Xen-devel] [xen vMCE RFC V0.2] xen vMCE design
>>> On 03.07.12 at 16:50, Christoph Egger <Christoph.Egger@amd.com> wrote:
> On 07/03/12 15:26, Luck, Tony wrote:
>
>>> I'm not convinced of the need, and would prefer aiming at a
>>> shared implementation unless issues arise that make this
>>> impossible.
>>
>> It does sound odd. Yes, Intel and AMD have differences around CMCI ... but
> we are never
>> going to send a CMCI to a guest (there is no point, it can't do anything
> useful with the
>> information, it may do something pointlessly stupid like stop using a guest
> physical page).
>> The only reason I suggested making MCG_CAP pretend that CMCI was supported
> was a
>> small optimization ... if a Linux guest sees that CMCI is supported, it will
> not poll the machine
>> check banks looking for corrected errors.
>
>
> Are you talking about PV or HVM guest?
>
> For HVM guests yes it makes sense to disable CMCI in MCG_CAP for both
> AMD and Intel.

"enable" you mean?

Jan



\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2012-07-03 17:21    [W:1.299 / U:0.196 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site