Re: 2 CPU Conformance Issue in KVM/x86

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 




On 09/03/2015 20:19, Avi Kivity wrote:
> I can't think of one with reasonable performance either.  Perhaps the
> maintainers could raise the issue with Intel.  It looks academic but it
> can happen in real life -- KVM for example used to rely on reserved bits
> faults (it set all bits in the PTE so it wouldn't have been caught by
> this).

Yes, and it checked that MAXPHYADDR != 52 before.  If you want to set
only one bit, making that bit 51 makes sense anyway for simplicity, so
it is still 99.9% academic.  Once processors appear with MAXPHYADDR =
52, the remaining 0.1% will become more relevant.

The current limit is IIRC 46 or 48 (on Haswell Xeons).

Paolo
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html




[Index of Archives]     [KVM ARM]     [KVM ia64]     [KVM ppc]     [Virtualization Tools]     [Spice Development]     [Libvirt]     [Libvirt Users]     [Linux USB Devel]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Yosemite Questions]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]     [XFree86]
  Powered by Linux