2014-12-01 17:30+0100, Paolo Bonzini:
> On 27/11/2014 23:26, Radim Krčmář wrote:
> > We can't deliver xAPIC and x2APIC broadcasts/logical messages at the
> > same time with current KVM and this patch just switches the working case
> > in favour of x2APIC, which is why I didn't think it was necessar
On 27/11/2014 23:26, Radim Krčmář wrote:
> We can't deliver xAPIC and x2APIC broadcasts/logical messages at the
> same time with current KVM and this patch just switches the working case
> in favour of x2APIC, which is why I didn't think it was necessary ...
> (And I didn't understand why prefer
2014-11-27 23:45+0200, Nadav Amit:
> Radim Krčmář wrote:
> > 2014-11-26 19:01+0200, Nadav Amit:
> >> Sorry for the late and long reply, but I got an issue with the new version
> >> (and my previous version as well). Indeed, the SDM states that DFR should
> >> be the same for enabled CPUs, and that
Radim Krčmář wrote:
> 2014-11-26 19:01+0200, Nadav Amit:
>> Sorry for the late and long reply, but I got an issue with the new version
>> (and my previous version as well). Indeed, the SDM states that DFR should
>> be the same for enabled CPUs, and that the BIOS should get all CPUs in
>> either x
2014-11-26 19:01+0200, Nadav Amit:
> Sorry for the late and long reply, but I got an issue with the new version
> (and my previous version as well). Indeed, the SDM states that DFR should
> be the same for enabled CPUs, and that the BIOS should get all CPUs in
> either xAPIC or x2APIC. Yet, there i
On 26/11/2014 18:01, Nadav Amit wrote:
> Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On 06/11/2014 17:45, Radim Krčmář wrote:
>>> 2014-11-06 10:34+0100, Paolo Bonzini:
On 05/11/2014 21:45, Nadav Amit wrote:
> If I understand the SDM correctly, in such scenario (all APICs are
> software disable
Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>
>
> On 06/11/2014 17:45, Radim Krčmář wrote:
>> 2014-11-06 10:34+0100, Paolo Bonzini:
>>> On 05/11/2014 21:45, Nadav Amit wrote:
If I understand the SDM correctly, in such scenario (all APICs are
software disabled) the mode is left as the default - flat mode (se
On 06/11/2014 17:45, Radim Krčmář wrote:
> 2014-11-06 10:34+0100, Paolo Bonzini:
>> On 05/11/2014 21:45, Nadav Amit wrote:
>>> If I understand the SDM correctly, in such scenario (all APICs are
>>> software disabled) the mode is left as the default - flat mode (see
>
> APIC doesn't have any glob
2014-11-10 18:35+0100, Paolo Bonzini:
> On 06/11/2014 17:45, Radim Krčmář wrote:
> > - } else if (kvm_apic_hw_enabled(apic)) {
> > + } else if (kvm_apic_get_reg(apic, APIC_LDR)) {
> > if (kvm_apic_get_reg(apic, APIC_DFR) ==
> >
On 06/11/2014 17:45, Radim Krčmář wrote:
> - } else if (kvm_apic_hw_enabled(apic)) {
> + } else if (kvm_apic_get_reg(apic, APIC_LDR)) {
> if (kvm_apic_get_reg(apic, APIC_DFR) ==
> APIC_DFR_CLUSTER) {
2014-11-06 10:34+0100, Paolo Bonzini:
> On 05/11/2014 21:45, Nadav Amit wrote:
> > If I understand the SDM correctly, in such scenario (all APICs are
> > software disabled) the mode is left as the default - flat mode (see
APIC doesn't have any global mode (it is just KVM's simplification), so
when
On 05/11/2014 21:45, Nadav Amit wrote:
> If I understand the SDM correctly, in such scenario (all APICs are
> software disabled) the mode is left as the default - flat mode (see
> section 10.6.2.2 "Logical Destination Mode”): "All processors that
> have their APIC software enabled (using the spur
> On Nov 5, 2014, at 14:30, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>
>
>
> On 02/11/2014 10:54, Nadav Amit wrote:
>> Currently, the APIC logical map does not consider VCPUs whose local-apic is
>> software-disabled. However, NMIs, INIT, etc. should still be delivered to
>> such
>> VCPUs. Therefore, the APIC mo
On 02/11/2014 10:54, Nadav Amit wrote:
> Currently, the APIC logical map does not consider VCPUs whose local-apic is
> software-disabled. However, NMIs, INIT, etc. should still be delivered to
> such
> VCPUs. Therefore, the APIC mode should first be determined, and then the map,
> considering a
14 matches
Mail list logo
