From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Jan Beulich" Subject: Re: machine check support in HVM guests Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2006 16:01:35 +0000 Message-ID: <456B19EF.76E4.0078.0@novell.com> References: <456B0B71.76E4.0078.0@novell.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: Content-Disposition: inline List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com To: Keir Fraser Cc: xen-devel@lists.xensource.com List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org >Then we support one bank of MSRs, store writes to those (so the contents can >be read back) but do not act on the writes? I never got the impression >machine check setup was very complicated. That may work, but doesn't have to. (a) There might be (slightly broken) OS assumptions that a minimum number of banks is available (since the banks serve different units within the CPU, this isn't too unlikely an assumption). (b) There might (now or in the future) be bits within the registers that have side effects that OSes expect to happen. So it'll have to be at least a little more complete than what you suggest (and I think it'll end up being not to far from a version as complete as would be reasonable in a virtualized environment). It's doable, certainly. Jan