On 16-09-12 01:30:22, Jan Beulich wrote:
> >>> On 12.09.16 at 05:26, wrote:
> > On 16-09-09 02:32:25, Jan Beulich wrote:
> >> >>> On 09.09.16 at 10:09, wrote:
> >> > First time, user wants to set L3 CAT of Dom1 to 0x1ff for example. The
> >> > old_cos
> >> > of Dom1 is 0. L3 CAT is the first ele
>>> On 12.09.16 at 05:26, wrote:
> On 16-09-09 02:32:25, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> >>> On 09.09.16 at 10:09, wrote:
>> > First time, user wants to set L3 CAT of Dom1 to 0x1ff for example. The
>> > old_cos
>> > of Dom1 is 0. L3 CAT is the first element of feature list. The COS
>> > registers
>> > va
On 16-09-09 11:14:50, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Jan Beulich writes ("Re: [PATCH 1/3] x86: refactor psr implementation in
> hypervisor."):
> > On 09.09.16 at 10:09, wrote:
> > > Sorry, I may misunderstand you. Maybe "check_exceed_cos_max" is a good
> > > name?
> >
> > According to my knowledge of Eng
On 16-09-09 02:32:25, Jan Beulich wrote:
> >>> On 09.09.16 at 10:09, wrote:
> > On 16-09-08 03:54:24, Jan Beulich wrote:
> >> >>> On 08.09.16 at 09:28, wrote:
> >> > On 16-09-07 03:01:34, Jan Beulich wrote:
> >> >> >> >>> On 25.08.16 at 07:22, wrote:
> >> >> >> > +unsigned int (*exceed_range
Jan Beulich writes ("Re: [PATCH 1/3] x86: refactor psr implementation in
hypervisor."):
> On 09.09.16 at 10:09, wrote:
> > Sorry, I may misunderstand you. Maybe "check_exceed_cos_max" is a good name?
>
> According to my knowledge of English this would still need to be
> "check_exceeds_cos_max",
>>> On 09.09.16 at 10:09, wrote:
> On 16-09-08 03:54:24, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> >>> On 08.09.16 at 09:28, wrote:
>> > On 16-09-07 03:01:34, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> >> >> >>> On 25.08.16 at 07:22, wrote:
>> >> >> > +unsigned int (*exceed_range)(uint64_t *mask, struct feat_list
>> >> >> > *pFeat
On 16-09-08 03:54:24, Jan Beulich wrote:
> >>> On 08.09.16 at 09:28, wrote:
> > On 16-09-07 03:01:34, Jan Beulich wrote:
> >> >> >>> On 25.08.16 at 07:22, wrote:
> >> >> > +unsigned int (*exceed_range)(uint64_t *mask, struct feat_list
> >> >> > *pFeat,
> >> >> > +
>>> On 08.09.16 at 09:28, wrote:
> On 16-09-07 03:01:34, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> >> >>> On 25.08.16 at 07:22, wrote:
>> >> > +unsigned int (*exceed_range)(uint64_t *mask, struct feat_list
>> >> > *pFeat,
>> >> > + unsigned int cos);
>> >>
>> >> According to the
On 16-09-07 03:01:34, Jan Beulich wrote:
> >> >>> On 25.08.16 at 07:22, wrote:
> >> > + struct psr_socket_alloc_info *info);
> >> > +/*
> >> > + * get_old_set_new is used in set value process to get all features'
> >> > + * COS registers values according to orig
>> >>> On 25.08.16 at 07:22, wrote:
>> > + struct psr_socket_alloc_info *info);
>> > +/*
>> > + * get_old_set_new is used in set value process to get all features'
>> > + * COS registers values according to original cos id of the domain.
>> > + * Then, assem
Hi, Jan,
Thank you very much for reviewing my patches in details! Please
check my comments below.
On 16-09-06 01:40:00, Jan Beulich wrote:
> >>> On 25.08.16 at 07:22, wrote:
> > --- a/xen/arch/x86/psr.c
> > +++ b/xen/arch/x86/psr.c
> > @@ -23,22 +23,116 @@
> > #define PSR_CAT(1<<1)
> >
>>> On 25.08.16 at 07:22, wrote:
> --- a/xen/arch/x86/psr.c
> +++ b/xen/arch/x86/psr.c
> @@ -23,22 +23,116 @@
> #define PSR_CAT(1<<1)
> #define PSR_CDP(1<<2)
>
> -struct psr_cat_cbm {
> -union {
> -uint64_t cbm;
> -struct {
> -uint64_t code;
> -
Current psr.c is designed for supporting L3 CAT/CDP. It has many
limitations to add new feature. Considering to support more PSR
features, we need refactor PSR implementation to make it more
flexible and fulfill the principle, open for extension but closed
for modification.
The core of the refacto
13 matches
Mail list logo
