On Wed, Apr 23, 2014 at 05:44:30PM +0200, Stephane Eranian wrote:
> A comment describing return values where rdmsrl_safe() is defined
> would maybe help avoid problems in the future.
If it helps, sure. But please as a separate patch and to x86 guys.
--
Regards/Gruss,
Boris.
Sent from a fat
On Wed, Apr 23, 2014 at 05:14:33PM +0200, Stephane Eranian wrote:
> Wouldn't rdmsrl_safe() return 0 on success?
Yes.
--
Regards/Gruss,
Boris.
Sent from a fat crate under my desk. Formatting is fine.
--
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body
On Wed, Apr 23, 2014 at 5:35 PM, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 23, 2014 at 05:18:29PM +0200, Stephane Eranian wrote:
>> On Wed, Apr 23, 2014 at 5:16 PM, Borislav Petkov wrote:
>> > On Wed, Apr 23, 2014 at 05:14:33PM +0200, Stephane Eranian wrote:
>> >> Wouldn't rdmsrl_safe() return 0 on
On Wed, Apr 23, 2014 at 05:18:29PM +0200, Stephane Eranian wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 23, 2014 at 5:16 PM, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> > On Wed, Apr 23, 2014 at 05:14:33PM +0200, Stephane Eranian wrote:
> >> Wouldn't rdmsrl_safe() return 0 on success?
> >
> > Yes.
> >
> then the if() test is wrong:
> if
On Wed, Apr 23, 2014 at 5:16 PM, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 23, 2014 at 05:14:33PM +0200, Stephane Eranian wrote:
>> Wouldn't rdmsrl_safe() return 0 on success?
>
> Yes.
>
then the if() test is wrong:
if (!rdmsrl_safe())
return -1;
Should be:
if (rdmsrl_safe())
return -1;
Or am I
On Wed, Apr 23, 2014 at 5:09 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 23, 2014 at 04:49:55PM +0200, Stephane Eranian wrote:
>> On your machine, booted with 3.15-rc2, do you have /sys/devices/power?
>> If not, and you have at least an SNB, you should have RAPL and that
>> RAPL_UNIT MSR.
>>
>> Proof
On Wed, Apr 23, 2014 at 04:49:55PM +0200, Stephane Eranian wrote:
> On your machine, booted with 3.15-rc2, do you have /sys/devices/power?
> If not, and you have at least an SNB, you should have RAPL and that
> RAPL_UNIT MSR.
>
> Proof is that if you read that MSR using /dev/cpu/msr it works just
On Wed, Apr 23, 2014 at 4:45 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 23, 2014 at 04:31:32PM +0200, Stephane Eranian wrote:
>> On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 8:36 PM, Venkatesh Srinivas
>> wrote:
>> > CPUs which should support the RAPL counters according to
>> > Family/Model/Stepping may still issue #GP
On Wed, Apr 23, 2014 at 04:31:32PM +0200, Stephane Eranian wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 8:36 PM, Venkatesh Srinivas
> wrote:
> > CPUs which should support the RAPL counters according to
> > Family/Model/Stepping may still issue #GP when attempting to access
> > the RAPL MSRs. This may happen
On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 8:36 PM, Venkatesh Srinivas
wrote:
> CPUs which should support the RAPL counters according to
> Family/Model/Stepping may still issue #GP when attempting to access
> the RAPL MSRs. This may happen when Linux is running under KVM and
> we are passing-through host F/M/S
On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 8:36 PM, Venkatesh Srinivas
venkate...@google.com wrote:
CPUs which should support the RAPL counters according to
Family/Model/Stepping may still issue #GP when attempting to access
the RAPL MSRs. This may happen when Linux is running under KVM and
we are
On Wed, Apr 23, 2014 at 04:31:32PM +0200, Stephane Eranian wrote:
On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 8:36 PM, Venkatesh Srinivas
venkate...@google.com wrote:
CPUs which should support the RAPL counters according to
Family/Model/Stepping may still issue #GP when attempting to access
the RAPL MSRs.
On Wed, Apr 23, 2014 at 4:45 PM, Peter Zijlstra pet...@infradead.org wrote:
On Wed, Apr 23, 2014 at 04:31:32PM +0200, Stephane Eranian wrote:
On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 8:36 PM, Venkatesh Srinivas
venkate...@google.com wrote:
CPUs which should support the RAPL counters according to
On Wed, Apr 23, 2014 at 04:49:55PM +0200, Stephane Eranian wrote:
On your machine, booted with 3.15-rc2, do you have /sys/devices/power?
If not, and you have at least an SNB, you should have RAPL and that
RAPL_UNIT MSR.
Proof is that if you read that MSR using /dev/cpu/msr it works just
On Wed, Apr 23, 2014 at 5:09 PM, Peter Zijlstra pet...@infradead.org wrote:
On Wed, Apr 23, 2014 at 04:49:55PM +0200, Stephane Eranian wrote:
On your machine, booted with 3.15-rc2, do you have /sys/devices/power?
If not, and you have at least an SNB, you should have RAPL and that
RAPL_UNIT
On Wed, Apr 23, 2014 at 5:16 PM, Borislav Petkov b...@alien8.de wrote:
On Wed, Apr 23, 2014 at 05:14:33PM +0200, Stephane Eranian wrote:
Wouldn't rdmsrl_safe() return 0 on success?
Yes.
then the if() test is wrong:
if (!rdmsrl_safe())
return -1;
Should be:
if (rdmsrl_safe())
return -1;
On Wed, Apr 23, 2014 at 05:18:29PM +0200, Stephane Eranian wrote:
On Wed, Apr 23, 2014 at 5:16 PM, Borislav Petkov b...@alien8.de wrote:
On Wed, Apr 23, 2014 at 05:14:33PM +0200, Stephane Eranian wrote:
Wouldn't rdmsrl_safe() return 0 on success?
Yes.
then the if() test is wrong:
if
On Wed, Apr 23, 2014 at 5:35 PM, Borislav Petkov b...@alien8.de wrote:
On Wed, Apr 23, 2014 at 05:18:29PM +0200, Stephane Eranian wrote:
On Wed, Apr 23, 2014 at 5:16 PM, Borislav Petkov b...@alien8.de wrote:
On Wed, Apr 23, 2014 at 05:14:33PM +0200, Stephane Eranian wrote:
Wouldn't
On Wed, Apr 23, 2014 at 05:14:33PM +0200, Stephane Eranian wrote:
Wouldn't rdmsrl_safe() return 0 on success?
Yes.
--
Regards/Gruss,
Boris.
Sent from a fat crate under my desk. Formatting is fine.
--
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in
the body of a
On Wed, Apr 23, 2014 at 05:44:30PM +0200, Stephane Eranian wrote:
A comment describing return values where rdmsrl_safe() is defined
would maybe help avoid problems in the future.
If it helps, sure. But please as a separate patch and to x86 guys.
--
Regards/Gruss,
Boris.
Sent from a fat
On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 10:57:58AM -0600, David Ahern wrote:
On 3/14/14, 10:17 AM, Andi Kleen wrote:
The Intel ISR section for RDMSR seems to say: "Specifying a reserved
or unimplemented
MSR address in ECX will also cause a general protection exception".
From a guest's perspective,
On 3/14/14, 10:17 AM, Andi Kleen wrote:
The Intel ISR section for RDMSR seems to say: "Specifying a reserved
or unimplemented
MSR address in ECX will also cause a general protection exception".
From a guest's perspective, MSR_RAPL_POWER_UNIT is unimplemented; kvm matches
this behavior.
MSRs
> The Intel ISR section for RDMSR seems to say: "Specifying a reserved
> or unimplemented
> MSR address in ECX will also cause a general protection exception".
>
> From a guest's perspective, MSR_RAPL_POWER_UNIT is unimplemented; kvm matches
> this behavior.
MSRs are model specific and defined
On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 6:56 AM, Andi Kleen wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 09:44:29AM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>> On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 12:36:26PM -0700, Venkatesh Srinivas wrote:
>> > CPUs which should support the RAPL counters according to
>> > Family/Model/Stepping may still issue #GP
On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 09:44:29AM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 12:36:26PM -0700, Venkatesh Srinivas wrote:
> > CPUs which should support the RAPL counters according to
> > Family/Model/Stepping may still issue #GP when attempting to access
> > the RAPL MSRs. This may
On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 12:36:26PM -0700, Venkatesh Srinivas wrote:
> CPUs which should support the RAPL counters according to
> Family/Model/Stepping may still issue #GP when attempting to access
> the RAPL MSRs. This may happen when Linux is running under KVM and
> we are passing-through host
On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 12:36:26PM -0700, Venkatesh Srinivas wrote:
CPUs which should support the RAPL counters according to
Family/Model/Stepping may still issue #GP when attempting to access
the RAPL MSRs. This may happen when Linux is running under KVM and
we are passing-through host F/M/S
On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 09:44:29AM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 12:36:26PM -0700, Venkatesh Srinivas wrote:
CPUs which should support the RAPL counters according to
Family/Model/Stepping may still issue #GP when attempting to access
the RAPL MSRs. This may happen
On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 6:56 AM, Andi Kleen a...@linux.intel.com wrote:
On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 09:44:29AM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 12:36:26PM -0700, Venkatesh Srinivas wrote:
CPUs which should support the RAPL counters according to
Family/Model/Stepping may still
The Intel ISR section for RDMSR seems to say: Specifying a reserved
or unimplemented
MSR address in ECX will also cause a general protection exception.
From a guest's perspective, MSR_RAPL_POWER_UNIT is unimplemented; kvm matches
this behavior.
MSRs are model specific and defined per model
On 3/14/14, 10:17 AM, Andi Kleen wrote:
The Intel ISR section for RDMSR seems to say: Specifying a reserved
or unimplemented
MSR address in ECX will also cause a general protection exception.
From a guest's perspective, MSR_RAPL_POWER_UNIT is unimplemented; kvm matches
this behavior.
MSRs
On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 10:57:58AM -0600, David Ahern wrote:
On 3/14/14, 10:17 AM, Andi Kleen wrote:
The Intel ISR section for RDMSR seems to say: Specifying a reserved
or unimplemented
MSR address in ECX will also cause a general protection exception.
From a guest's perspective,
CPUs which should support the RAPL counters according to
Family/Model/Stepping may still issue #GP when attempting to access
the RAPL MSRs. This may happen when Linux is running under KVM and
we are passing-through host F/M/S data, for example. Use rdmsrl_safe
to first access the RAPL_POWER_UNIT
CPUs which should support the RAPL counters according to
Family/Model/Stepping may still issue #GP when attempting to access
the RAPL MSRs. This may happen when Linux is running under KVM and
we are passing-through host F/M/S data, for example. Use rdmsrl_safe
to first access the RAPL_POWER_UNIT
CPUs which should support the RAPL counters according to
Family/Model/Stepping may still issue #GP when attempting to access
the RAPL MSRs. This may happen when Linux is running under KVM and
we are passing-through host F/M/S data, for example. Use rdmsrl_safe
to first access the RAPL_POWER_UNIT
CPUs which should support the RAPL counters according to
Family/Model/Stepping may still issue #GP when attempting to access
the RAPL MSRs. This may happen when Linux is running under KVM and
we are passing-through host F/M/S data, for example. Use rdmsrl_safe
to first access the RAPL_POWER_UNIT
36 matches
Mail list logo
