lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2017]   [Aug]   [24]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH 1/4] KVM: VMX: cache secondary exec controls
From
Date
On 24/08/2017 18:02, Jim Mattson wrote:
> On the subject of complexity, why do we clear
> CPUID.(EAX=07H,ECX=0):EBX.INVPCID[bit 10] when CPUID.01H:ECX.PCID[bit
> 17] is clear? Sure, it would be odd to support the INVPCID instruction
> without also supporting PCIDs, but why single out this one check?
> Isn't it equally bizarre to support SSE2 without SSE, or XSAVES
> without XSAVE, or RDTSCP without TSC, or DS-CPL without DS, or ...?

I actually agree with you. It's just been like this forever:

commit ad756a1603c5fac207758faaac7f01c34c9d0b7b
Author: Mao, Junjie <junjie.mao@intel.com>
Date: Mon Jul 2 01:18:48 2012 +0000

KVM: VMX: Implement PCID/INVPCID for guests with EPT

Paolo

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2017-08-24 18:10    [W:0.045 / U:1.104 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site