On Fri, Sep 12, 2014 at 01:03:12PM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 12, 2014 at 12:25 PM, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk
> wrote:
> > On Thu, Sep 04, 2014 at 04:34:43PM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> >> At the very least, anyone who plugs an NV-DIMM into a 32-bit machine
> >> is nuts, and not
On Fri, Sep 12, 2014 at 12:25 PM, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk
wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 04, 2014 at 04:34:43PM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>> At the very least, anyone who plugs an NV-DIMM into a 32-bit machine
>> is nuts, and not just because I'd be somewhat amazed if it even
>> physically fits into the
On Thu, Sep 04, 2014 at 04:34:43PM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 4, 2014 at 4:19 PM, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh
> wrote:
> > On Thu, 04 Sep 2014, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> >> On 09/04/2014 01:11 PM, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
> >> > I am worried of uncharted territory, here.
On Thu, Sep 04, 2014 at 04:34:43PM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
On Thu, Sep 4, 2014 at 4:19 PM, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh
h...@hmh.eng.br wrote:
On Thu, 04 Sep 2014, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
On 09/04/2014 01:11 PM, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
I am worried of uncharted territory,
On Fri, Sep 12, 2014 at 12:25 PM, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk
konrad.w...@oracle.com wrote:
On Thu, Sep 04, 2014 at 04:34:43PM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
At the very least, anyone who plugs an NV-DIMM into a 32-bit machine
is nuts, and not just because I'd be somewhat amazed if it even
physically
On Fri, Sep 12, 2014 at 01:03:12PM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
On Fri, Sep 12, 2014 at 12:25 PM, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk
konrad.w...@oracle.com wrote:
On Thu, Sep 04, 2014 at 04:34:43PM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
At the very least, anyone who plugs an NV-DIMM into a 32-bit machine
is
On Fri, 05 Sep 2014, Toshi Kani wrote:
> On Fri, 2014-09-05 at 12:23 +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > Any reason why we have to create such a sharp boundary, instead
> > of simply saying: 'disable PAT on all x86 CPU families that have
> > at least one buggy model'?
> >
> > That would nicely sort
On Fri, 05 Sep 2014, Toshi Kani wrote:
On Fri, 2014-09-05 at 12:23 +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
Any reason why we have to create such a sharp boundary, instead
of simply saying: 'disable PAT on all x86 CPU families that have
at least one buggy model'?
That would nicely sort out all the
On Fri, 2014-09-05 at 08:41 -0700, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> On 09/05/2014 08:22 AM, Toshi Kani wrote:
> > On Fri, 2014-09-05 at 08:07 -0700, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> >> On 09/05/2014 07:00 AM, Toshi Kani wrote:
> >>>
> >>> That's a fine idea, but as Ingo also suggested, I am going to disable
> >>>
On 09/05/2014 08:22 AM, Toshi Kani wrote:
> On Fri, 2014-09-05 at 08:07 -0700, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
>> On 09/05/2014 07:00 AM, Toshi Kani wrote:
>>>
>>> That's a fine idea, but as Ingo also suggested, I am going to disable
>>> this feature on all Pentium 4 models. That should give us a safety
On Fri, 2014-09-05 at 08:07 -0700, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> On 09/05/2014 07:00 AM, Toshi Kani wrote:
> >
> > That's a fine idea, but as Ingo also suggested, I am going to disable
> > this feature on all Pentium 4 models. That should give us a safety
> > margin. Using slot 4 has a benefit that
On 09/05/2014 07:00 AM, Toshi Kani wrote:
>
> That's a fine idea, but as Ingo also suggested, I am going to disable
> this feature on all Pentium 4 models. That should give us a safety
> margin. Using slot 4 has a benefit that it keeps the PAT setup
> consistent with Xen.
>
Slot 4 is
On Thu, 2014-09-04 at 17:51 -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 4, 2014 at 5:29 PM, Toshi Kani wrote:
> > On Thu, 2014-09-04 at 16:34 -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> >> On Thu, Sep 4, 2014 at 4:19 PM, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh
> >> wrote:
> >> > On Thu, 04 Sep 2014, H. Peter Anvin
On Fri, 2014-09-05 at 12:23 +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> * Toshi Kani wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 2014-09-04 at 14:31 -0600, Toshi Kani wrote:
> > > On Thu, 2014-09-04 at 17:11 -0300, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
> > > > On Thu, 04 Sep 2014, Toshi Kani wrote:
> > > > > This patch sets WT to the
* Toshi Kani wrote:
> On Thu, 2014-09-04 at 14:31 -0600, Toshi Kani wrote:
> > On Thu, 2014-09-04 at 17:11 -0300, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
> > > On Thu, 04 Sep 2014, Toshi Kani wrote:
> > > > This patch sets WT to the PA4 slot in the PAT MSR when the processor
> > > > is not affected
* Toshi Kani toshi.k...@hp.com wrote:
On Thu, 2014-09-04 at 14:31 -0600, Toshi Kani wrote:
On Thu, 2014-09-04 at 17:11 -0300, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
On Thu, 04 Sep 2014, Toshi Kani wrote:
This patch sets WT to the PA4 slot in the PAT MSR when the processor
is not
On Fri, 2014-09-05 at 12:23 +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
* Toshi Kani toshi.k...@hp.com wrote:
On Thu, 2014-09-04 at 14:31 -0600, Toshi Kani wrote:
On Thu, 2014-09-04 at 17:11 -0300, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
On Thu, 04 Sep 2014, Toshi Kani wrote:
This patch sets WT to the
On Thu, 2014-09-04 at 17:51 -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
On Thu, Sep 4, 2014 at 5:29 PM, Toshi Kani toshi.k...@hp.com wrote:
On Thu, 2014-09-04 at 16:34 -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
On Thu, Sep 4, 2014 at 4:19 PM, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh
h...@hmh.eng.br wrote:
On Thu, 04 Sep 2014,
On 09/05/2014 07:00 AM, Toshi Kani wrote:
That's a fine idea, but as Ingo also suggested, I am going to disable
this feature on all Pentium 4 models. That should give us a safety
margin. Using slot 4 has a benefit that it keeps the PAT setup
consistent with Xen.
Slot 4 is also the
On Fri, 2014-09-05 at 08:07 -0700, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
On 09/05/2014 07:00 AM, Toshi Kani wrote:
That's a fine idea, but as Ingo also suggested, I am going to disable
this feature on all Pentium 4 models. That should give us a safety
margin. Using slot 4 has a benefit that it keeps
On 09/05/2014 08:22 AM, Toshi Kani wrote:
On Fri, 2014-09-05 at 08:07 -0700, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
On 09/05/2014 07:00 AM, Toshi Kani wrote:
That's a fine idea, but as Ingo also suggested, I am going to disable
this feature on all Pentium 4 models. That should give us a safety
margin.
On Fri, 2014-09-05 at 08:41 -0700, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
On 09/05/2014 08:22 AM, Toshi Kani wrote:
On Fri, 2014-09-05 at 08:07 -0700, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
On 09/05/2014 07:00 AM, Toshi Kani wrote:
That's a fine idea, but as Ingo also suggested, I am going to disable
this feature on all
On Thu, Sep 4, 2014 at 5:29 PM, Toshi Kani wrote:
> On Thu, 2014-09-04 at 16:34 -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>> On Thu, Sep 4, 2014 at 4:19 PM, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh
>> wrote:
>> > On Thu, 04 Sep 2014, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
>> >> On 09/04/2014 01:11 PM, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
On Thu, 2014-09-04 at 16:34 -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 4, 2014 at 4:19 PM, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh
> wrote:
> > On Thu, 04 Sep 2014, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> >> On 09/04/2014 01:11 PM, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
> >> > I am worried of uncharted territory, here. I'd
On Thu, 2014-09-04 at 14:31 -0600, Toshi Kani wrote:
> On Thu, 2014-09-04 at 17:11 -0300, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
> > On Thu, 04 Sep 2014, Toshi Kani wrote:
> > > This patch sets WT to the PA4 slot in the PAT MSR when the processor
> > > is not affected by the PAT errata. The upper 4
On Thu, Sep 4, 2014 at 4:19 PM, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh
wrote:
> On Thu, 04 Sep 2014, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
>> On 09/04/2014 01:11 PM, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
>> > I am worried of uncharted territory, here. I'd actually advocate for not
>> > enabling the upper four PAT entries on
On Thu, 04 Sep 2014, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> On 09/04/2014 01:11 PM, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
> > I am worried of uncharted territory, here. I'd actually advocate for not
> > enabling the upper four PAT entries on IA-32 at all, unless Windows 9X / XP
> > is using them as well. Is this
On Thu, Sep 4, 2014 at 1:31 PM, Toshi Kani wrote:
> On Thu, 2014-09-04 at 17:11 -0300, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
>> On Thu, 04 Sep 2014, Toshi Kani wrote:
>> > This patch sets WT to the PA4 slot in the PAT MSR when the processor
>> > is not affected by the PAT errata. The upper 4 slots
On Thu, 2014-09-04 at 17:11 -0300, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
> On Thu, 04 Sep 2014, Toshi Kani wrote:
> > This patch sets WT to the PA4 slot in the PAT MSR when the processor
> > is not affected by the PAT errata. The upper 4 slots of the PAT MSR
> > are continued to be unused on the
On 09/04/2014 01:11 PM, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
>
> I am worried of uncharted territory, here. I'd actually advocate for not
> enabling the upper four PAT entries on IA-32 at all, unless Windows 9X / XP
> is using them as well. Is this a real concern, or am I being overly
> cautious?
On Thu, 04 Sep 2014, Toshi Kani wrote:
> This patch sets WT to the PA4 slot in the PAT MSR when the processor
> is not affected by the PAT errata. The upper 4 slots of the PAT MSR
> are continued to be unused on the following Intel processors.
>
> errata cpuid
>
This patch sets WT to the PA4 slot in the PAT MSR when the processor
is not affected by the PAT errata. The upper 4 slots of the PAT MSR
are continued to be unused on the following Intel processors.
errata cpuid
--
Pentium 2, A52 family 0x6,
This patch sets WT to the PA4 slot in the PAT MSR when the processor
is not affected by the PAT errata. The upper 4 slots of the PAT MSR
are continued to be unused on the following Intel processors.
errata cpuid
--
Pentium 2, A52 family 0x6,
On Thu, 04 Sep 2014, Toshi Kani wrote:
This patch sets WT to the PA4 slot in the PAT MSR when the processor
is not affected by the PAT errata. The upper 4 slots of the PAT MSR
are continued to be unused on the following Intel processors.
errata cpuid
On 09/04/2014 01:11 PM, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
I am worried of uncharted territory, here. I'd actually advocate for not
enabling the upper four PAT entries on IA-32 at all, unless Windows 9X / XP
is using them as well. Is this a real concern, or am I being overly
cautious?
On Thu, 2014-09-04 at 17:11 -0300, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
On Thu, 04 Sep 2014, Toshi Kani wrote:
This patch sets WT to the PA4 slot in the PAT MSR when the processor
is not affected by the PAT errata. The upper 4 slots of the PAT MSR
are continued to be unused on the following
On Thu, Sep 4, 2014 at 1:31 PM, Toshi Kani toshi.k...@hp.com wrote:
On Thu, 2014-09-04 at 17:11 -0300, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
On Thu, 04 Sep 2014, Toshi Kani wrote:
This patch sets WT to the PA4 slot in the PAT MSR when the processor
is not affected by the PAT errata. The upper
On Thu, 04 Sep 2014, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
On 09/04/2014 01:11 PM, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
I am worried of uncharted territory, here. I'd actually advocate for not
enabling the upper four PAT entries on IA-32 at all, unless Windows 9X / XP
is using them as well. Is this a real
On Thu, Sep 4, 2014 at 4:19 PM, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh
h...@hmh.eng.br wrote:
On Thu, 04 Sep 2014, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
On 09/04/2014 01:11 PM, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
I am worried of uncharted territory, here. I'd actually advocate for not
enabling the upper four PAT
On Thu, 2014-09-04 at 14:31 -0600, Toshi Kani wrote:
On Thu, 2014-09-04 at 17:11 -0300, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
On Thu, 04 Sep 2014, Toshi Kani wrote:
This patch sets WT to the PA4 slot in the PAT MSR when the processor
is not affected by the PAT errata. The upper 4 slots of
On Thu, 2014-09-04 at 16:34 -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
On Thu, Sep 4, 2014 at 4:19 PM, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh
h...@hmh.eng.br wrote:
On Thu, 04 Sep 2014, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
On 09/04/2014 01:11 PM, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
I am worried of uncharted territory, here.
On Thu, Sep 4, 2014 at 5:29 PM, Toshi Kani toshi.k...@hp.com wrote:
On Thu, 2014-09-04 at 16:34 -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
On Thu, Sep 4, 2014 at 4:19 PM, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh
h...@hmh.eng.br wrote:
On Thu, 04 Sep 2014, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
On 09/04/2014 01:11 PM, Henrique de
42 matches
Mail list logo