Re: [RFC] CPUID usage for interaction between Hypervisors and Linux.

[Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@goop.org>]

H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> What you'd want, at least, is a standard CPUID identification and 
> range leaf at the top.  256 leaves is a *lot*, though; I'm not saying 
> one couldn't run out, but it'd be hard.  Keep in mind that for large 
> objects there are "counting" CPUID levels, as much as I personally 
> dislike them, and one could easily argue that if you're doing 
> something that would require anywhere near 256 leaves you probably are 
> storing bulk data that belongs elsewhere.

I agree, but it just makes the proposal a bit more brittle.

> Of course, if we had some kind of central authority assigning 8-bit 
> IDs that would be even better, especially since there are tools in the 
> field which already scan on 64K boundaries.  I don't know, though, how 
> likely it is that we'll have to deal with 256 hypervisors.

I'm assuming that the likelihood of getting all possible vendors - 
current and future - to agree to a scheme like this is pretty small.  We 
need to come up with something that will work well when there are 
non-cooperative parties to deal with.

> I agree completely, of course (except that "what hypervisor is this" 
> still has limited usage, especially when it comes to dealing with bug 
> workarounds.  Similar to the way we use CPU vendor IDs and stepping 
> numbers for physical CPUs.)

I guess.  Its certainly useful to be able to identify the hypervisor for 
bug reporting and just general status information.  But making 
functional changes on that basis should be a last resort.

    J