Re: requiring virtual NMI for Intel processors?

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

 



I have no information that suggests otherwise, but just a couple of small
comments:

1. It seems you look on Xeons (excluding Yonah and Cedarmill). Desktop and
laptop CPUs may have different fusing than servers.

2. No Atoms in the list.


> On Feb 20, 2017, at 11:43 AM, Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> I spent some time collecting vmxcap output for various Intel processors.
> I tested Prescott (Cedar Mill actually), Yonah (32-bit only) and every
> microarchitecture from Conroe to Haswell.  As far as I can tell, these
> are all Intel processors that supported virtualization.  My notes are
> attached.
> 
> The only ones without virtual NMI and NMI-window exiting were the Cedar
> Mill and Yonah.  One is a Pentium 4 microarchitecture that one should
> use as a toaster rather than as a hypervisor; the other is not even
> 64-bit capable.  It also has VMCS restricted to 32 bit addresses, so if
> it ever had >3.5GB memory installed KVM would break.
> 
> Based on this, I'd like to drop the code that emulates the NMI window
> and just require these two features in KVM 4.11+.
> 
> Any objections?
> 
> Paolo
> <VMX-CAP.txt>




[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