From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Anthony Liguori <anthony@codemonkey.ws>
Subject: Re: [RFC] CPUID usage for interaction between Hypervisors and Linux.
Date: Wed, 01 Oct 2008 15:03:44 -0500
Message-ID: <48E3D7A0.3000403@codemonkey.ws>
References: <1222881242.9381.17.camel@alok-dev1> <48E3BBC1.2050607__35819.6151479662$1222884502$gmane$org@goop.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: akataria@vmware.com, kvm@vger.kernel.org,
	the arch/x86 maintainers <x86@kernel.org>,
	Dan Hecht <dhecht@vmware.com>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org,
	"avi@redhat.com" <avi@redhat.com>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
To: Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@goop.org>
Return-path: <kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: from yw-out-2324.google.com ([74.125.46.31]:52360 "EHLO
	yw-out-2324.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1753895AbYJAUEv (ORCPT <rfc822;kvm@vger.kernel.org>);
	Wed, 1 Oct 2008 16:04:51 -0400
Received: by yw-out-2324.google.com with SMTP id 9so128188ywe.1
        for <kvm@vger.kernel.org>; Wed, 01 Oct 2008 13:04:49 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <48E3BBC1.2050607__35819.6151479662$1222884502$gmane$org@goop.org>
Sender: kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <kvm.vger.kernel.org>

Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote:
> Alok Kataria wrote:
> 
> No, we're not getting anywhere.  This is an outright broken idea.  The 
> space is too small to be able to chop up in this way, and the number of 
> vendors too large to be able to do it without having a central oversight.
> 
> The only way this can work is by having explicit positive identification 
> of each group of leaves with a signature.  If there's a recognizable 
> signature, then you can inspect the rest of the group; if not, then you 
> can't.  That way, you can avoid any leaf usage which doesn't conform to 
> this model, and you can also simultaneously support multiple hypervisor 
> ABIs.  It also accommodates existing hypervisor use of this leaf space, 
> even if they currently use a fixed location within it.
> 
> A concrete counter-proposal:

Mmm, cpuid bikeshedding :-)

> The space 0x40000000-0x400000ff is reserved for hypervisor usage.
> 
> This region is divided into 16 16-leaf blocks.  Each block has the 
> structure:
> 
> 0x400000x0:
>     eax: max used leaf within the leaf block (max 0x400000xf)

Why even bother with this?  It doesn't seem necessary in your proposal.

Regards,

Anthony Liguori