>>> On 08.12.16 at 11:23, <dario.faggi...@citrix.com> wrote: > On Thu, 2016-12-08 at 03:14 -0700, Jan Beulich wrote: >> > > > On 07.12.16 at 19:29, <dario.faggi...@citrix.com> wrote: >> > ### x86 >> > >> > There is no HMP platform of relevance, for now, in x86 world. >> > Therefore, >> > only one class will exist, and all the CPUs will be set to belong >> > to it. >> > **TODO X86:** is this correct? >> >> What about the original Xeon Phi (on a PCIe card)? >> > Well, what I'd say about it is that I did not know about its existence. > :-) > > Anyway, if we have HMP on x86 already, and we want to support them, > we'll have to define criteria for building classes there too. Once that > is done, the rest of this document should be general enough (or at > least that was the intent). > > About defining those criteria, I'd appreciate whatever input you x86 > experts will be able to share. :-)
Well, the obvious part of the classification would be differences in CPUID output - vendor, family, model, stepping, feature flags. I'm not currently aware of ways to identify differing performance, but I'm also unaware of systems built with CPUs varying in e.g. clock speeds. Jan _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xen.org https://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
