From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "H. Peter Anvin" Subject: Re: Xen HVM regression on certain Intel CPUs Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2013 09:18:21 -0700 Message-ID: <51531BCD.2060905@zytor.com> References: <51530F9F.10805@canonical.com> <515315EC.4030803@canonical.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <515315EC.4030803@canonical.com> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org To: Stefan Bader Cc: "xen-devel@lists.xensource.com" , Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org On 03/27/2013 08:53 AM, Stefan Bader wrote: > Seems that I was relying on the wrong source of information when > checking SMEP support. The cpuid command seems at fail. But > /proc/cpuinfo reports it. So that at least explains where that > comes from... sorry for that. What does /proc/cpuinfo and cpuid (or x86info) have for the BSP and APs, respectively? Any instance here of inconsistencies? -hpa