On 04/03/2024 8:42 am, Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 01.03.2024 12:28, Andrew Cooper wrote:
>> --- a/xen/arch/x86/cpu-policy.c
>> +++ b/xen/arch/x86/cpu-policy.c
>> @@ -464,6 +464,16 @@ static void __init
>> guest_common_max_feature_adjustments(uint32_t *fs)
>> raw_cpu_policy.feat.clwb )
>
On 01.03.2024 12:28, Andrew Cooper wrote:
> --- a/xen/arch/x86/cpu-policy.c
> +++ b/xen/arch/x86/cpu-policy.c
> @@ -464,6 +464,16 @@ static void __init
> guest_common_max_feature_adjustments(uint32_t *fs)
> raw_cpu_policy.feat.clwb )
> __set_bit(X86_FEATURE_CLWB, fs);
>
On 01/03/2024 12:30 pm, Roger Pau Monné wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 01, 2024 at 11:28:29AM +, Andrew Cooper wrote:
>> The block in recalculate_cpuid_policy() predates the proper split between
>> default and max policies, and was a "slightly max for a toolstack which knows
>> about it" capability. It
On Fri, Mar 01, 2024 at 11:28:29AM +, Andrew Cooper wrote:
> The block in recalculate_cpuid_policy() predates the proper split between
> default and max policies, and was a "slightly max for a toolstack which knows
> about it" capability. It didn't get transformed properly in Xen 4.14.
>
> Be
The block in recalculate_cpuid_policy() predates the proper split between
default and max policies, and was a "slightly max for a toolstack which knows
about it" capability. It didn't get transformed properly in Xen 4.14.
Because Xen will accept a VM with HTT/CMP_LEGACY seen, they should be visib
