On 07/24/2015 12:10 PM, Juergen Gross wrote:
If we can fiddle with the masks on boot, we could do it in a running system, too. Another advantage with not relying on cpuid. :-)
I am trying to catch up with this thread so I may have missed it, but I still don't understand why we don't want to rely on CPUID.
I think I saw Juergen said --- because it's HW-specific. But what's wrong with that? Hypervisor is building virtualized x86 (in this case) hardware and on such HW CPUID is the standard way of determining thread/core topology. Plus various ACPI tables and such.
And having a solution that doesn't address userspace (when there *is* a solution that can do it) doesn't seem like the best approach. Yes, it still won't cover userspace for PV guests but neither will the kernel patch.
As far as licensing is concerned --- are we sure this can't also be addressed by CPUID? BTW, if I was asked about who is most concerned about licensing my first answer would be --- databases. I.e. userspace.
(Also, I don't know whether this is still true but in the past APICID format was also used for topology discovery. Just to make things a bit more interesting ;-))
-boris _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xen.org http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
