On Tuesday 05 January 2010 18:43:21 Avi Kivity wrote:
> On 01/05/2010 12:12 PM, Sheng Yang wrote:
> > Signed-off-by: Sheng Yang<sheng@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > arch/x86/include/asm/vmx.h | 1 +
> > arch/x86/kvm/mmu.c | 8 +++++---
> > arch/x86/kvm/vmx.c | 11 ++++++++++-
> > 3 files changed, 16 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/arch/x86/include/asm/vmx.h b/arch/x86/include/asm/vmx.h
> > index 713ed9a..43f1e9b 100644
> > --- a/arch/x86/include/asm/vmx.h
> > +++ b/arch/x86/include/asm/vmx.h
> > @@ -364,6 +364,7 @@ enum vmcs_field {
> > #define VMX_EPTP_UC_BIT (1ull<< 8)
> > #define VMX_EPTP_WB_BIT (1ull<< 14)
> > #define VMX_EPT_2MB_PAGE_BIT (1ull<< 16)
> > +#define VMX_EPT_1GB_PAGE_BIT (1ull<< 17)
>
> Can you share when this feature will be available in hardware?
I think it should be with the 32nm Core i7 (at least highend server edition),
slated for early 2010 release.
>
> > static int vmx_get_lpage_level(void)
> > {
> > - return 2; /* PT_DIRECTORY_LEVEL */
> > + if (enable_ept&& !cpu_has_vmx_ept_1g_page())
> > + return 2; /* PT_DIRECTORY_LEVEL */
> > + else
> > + /* For shadow and EPT supported 1GB page */
> > + return 3; /* PT_PDPE_LEVEL */
> > }
>
> Why not use the defines instead of numbers? It will reduce change when
> we change PT_*_LEVEL to be zero based instead of one based.
Oh, sure (caused by a little chaos in mind...). Patch 1 is also
affected(cpuid). Would resent the patchset soon.
>
> Patchset looks good; second patch should go into .33 and stable, no?
>
Sure. I would cc stable later.
--
regards
Yang, Sheng
--
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
