>>
>> PV guests don't go through Linux x86 early boot code. They start at
>> xen_start_kernel() (well, xen-head.S:startup_xen(), really) and merge
>> with baremetal path at x86_64_start_reservations() (for 64-bit).
>>
>
> Ok, I don't think anything needs to be done then. The sme_me_mask is set
>
>>
>> PV guests don't go through Linux x86 early boot code. They start at
>> xen_start_kernel() (well, xen-head.S:startup_xen(), really) and merge
>> with baremetal path at x86_64_start_reservations() (for 64-bit).
>>
>
> Ok, I don't think anything needs to be done then. The sme_me_mask is set
>
On 6/9/2017 1:43 PM, Boris Ostrovsky wrote:
On 06/09/2017 02:36 PM, Tom Lendacky wrote:
On 6/8/2017 5:01 PM, Andrew Cooper wrote:
On 08/06/2017 22:17, Boris Ostrovsky wrote:
On 06/08/2017 05:02 PM, Tom Lendacky wrote:
On 6/8/2017 3:51 PM, Boris Ostrovsky wrote:
What may be needed is making
On 6/9/2017 1:43 PM, Boris Ostrovsky wrote:
On 06/09/2017 02:36 PM, Tom Lendacky wrote:
On 6/8/2017 5:01 PM, Andrew Cooper wrote:
On 08/06/2017 22:17, Boris Ostrovsky wrote:
On 06/08/2017 05:02 PM, Tom Lendacky wrote:
On 6/8/2017 3:51 PM, Boris Ostrovsky wrote:
What may be needed is making
On 09/06/17 19:43, Boris Ostrovsky wrote:
> On 06/09/2017 02:36 PM, Tom Lendacky wrote:
>>> basis, although (as far as I am aware) Xen as a whole would be able to
>>> encompass itself and all of its PV guests inside one single SME
>>> instance.
>> Yes, that is correct.
Thinking more about this,
On 09/06/17 19:43, Boris Ostrovsky wrote:
> On 06/09/2017 02:36 PM, Tom Lendacky wrote:
>>> basis, although (as far as I am aware) Xen as a whole would be able to
>>> encompass itself and all of its PV guests inside one single SME
>>> instance.
>> Yes, that is correct.
Thinking more about this,
On 06/09/2017 02:36 PM, Tom Lendacky wrote:
> On 6/8/2017 5:01 PM, Andrew Cooper wrote:
>> On 08/06/2017 22:17, Boris Ostrovsky wrote:
>>> On 06/08/2017 05:02 PM, Tom Lendacky wrote:
On 6/8/2017 3:51 PM, Boris Ostrovsky wrote:
>>> What may be needed is making sure X86_FEATURE_SME is not
On 06/09/2017 02:36 PM, Tom Lendacky wrote:
> On 6/8/2017 5:01 PM, Andrew Cooper wrote:
>> On 08/06/2017 22:17, Boris Ostrovsky wrote:
>>> On 06/08/2017 05:02 PM, Tom Lendacky wrote:
On 6/8/2017 3:51 PM, Boris Ostrovsky wrote:
>>> What may be needed is making sure X86_FEATURE_SME is not
On 6/8/2017 5:01 PM, Andrew Cooper wrote:
On 08/06/2017 22:17, Boris Ostrovsky wrote:
On 06/08/2017 05:02 PM, Tom Lendacky wrote:
On 6/8/2017 3:51 PM, Boris Ostrovsky wrote:
What may be needed is making sure X86_FEATURE_SME is not set for PV
guests.
And that may be something that Xen will
On 6/8/2017 5:01 PM, Andrew Cooper wrote:
On 08/06/2017 22:17, Boris Ostrovsky wrote:
On 06/08/2017 05:02 PM, Tom Lendacky wrote:
On 6/8/2017 3:51 PM, Boris Ostrovsky wrote:
What may be needed is making sure X86_FEATURE_SME is not set for PV
guests.
And that may be something that Xen will
On 08/06/2017 22:17, Boris Ostrovsky wrote:
> On 06/08/2017 05:02 PM, Tom Lendacky wrote:
>> On 6/8/2017 3:51 PM, Boris Ostrovsky wrote:
> What may be needed is making sure X86_FEATURE_SME is not set for PV
> guests.
And that may be something that Xen will need to control through
On 08/06/2017 22:17, Boris Ostrovsky wrote:
> On 06/08/2017 05:02 PM, Tom Lendacky wrote:
>> On 6/8/2017 3:51 PM, Boris Ostrovsky wrote:
> What may be needed is making sure X86_FEATURE_SME is not set for PV
> guests.
And that may be something that Xen will need to control through
12 matches
Mail list logo
