From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Don Slutz Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/3] Add vmware_hw to xl.cfg Date: Mon, 08 Sep 2014 14:39:55 -0400 Message-ID: <540DF7FB.1070104@terremark.com> References: <1409585629-25840-1-git-send-email-dslutz@verizon.com> <1409585629-25840-2-git-send-email-dslutz@verizon.com> <54058DC3020000780002FB1D@mail.emea.novell.com> <54060B5C.30205@terremark.com> <5406E32802000078000300E2@mail.emea.novell.com> <1410182429.3680.18.camel@kazak.uk.xensource.com> <540DB5A7.5060804@terremark.com> <540DB822.1080603@citrix.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <540DB822.1080603@citrix.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: Andrew Cooper , Don Slutz , Ian Campbell , Jan Beulich Cc: Kevin Tian , Keir Fraser , Jun Nakajima , Stefano Stabellini , Tim Deegan , Eddie Dong , xen-devel@lists.xen.org, Aravind Gopalakrishnan , Suravee Suthikulpanit , Boris Ostrovsky , Ian Jackson List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org On 09/08/14 10:07, Andrew Cooper wrote: > On 08/09/14 14:56, Don Slutz wrote: >> On 09/08/14 09:20, Ian Campbell wrote: >>> On Wed, 2014-09-03 at 08:45 +0100, Jan Beulich wrote: >>>>>>> On 02.09.14 at 20:24, wrote: >>>>> On 09/02/14 03:28, Jan Beulich wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 01.09.14 at 17:33, wrote: >>>>>>> So based on this, I picked the order: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 0x40000000 is viridian, vmware or xen >>>>>>> 0x40000100 is vmware or xen >>>>>>> 0x40000200 is xen >>>>>> Is there really a point in enabling both Viridian and VMware >>>>>> extensions >>>>>> at the same time? >>>>> Not that I know of (and I do not want to say there there is no code >>>>> out there that can work with both). Instead of an error or warning >>>>> I went with what xen is currently doing and that seabios was happy >>>>> to find xen at 0x40000200. >>>>> >>>>> If the consensus is to ignore, or report an error or warning I will >>>>> go that >>>>> way. For now I am not planning on changing. >>>> My personal take on this is that the hypervisor (or perhaps already >>>> the tools) should reject enabling both at the same time. >>> That sounds sensible to me. >>> >>> Generally we seem to have the hypervisor check these things as a >>> backstop, to stop broken tools, but also check in the tools so we can >>> give a better error message. >>> >> Ok, with 2 votes this way how about (for v4) I will drop the change to >> xen/arch/x86/traps.c (I.E. 0x40000100 will be xen) And change >> >> cpuid_vmware_leaves to return 0 if is_viridian_domain(). >> >> And add some logic in the and doc in the tools patch to do this error >> message. >> >> -Don Slutz > I expect that Vmware will expose viridian to windows domains, as it is > the only supported Microsoft way of doing doing virt for windows. > Therefore it is entirely plausible that both could need to be active at > once. (Although this does depend on whether the vmware leaf supports > being somewhere other than 0x40000000, as the viridian leaf certainly > doesn't.) As far as I can tell, VMware does not expose viridian to windows domains. As I understand it they adjust the time that guest sees so that windows does not BSOD 101. They also adjust more things so windows "works". Going with viridian is much better. I only see VMware on ESXi 4.1.0, they may have added this in newer versions. And (from the commit message's url): http://kb.vmware.com/selfservice/microsites/search.do?language=en_US&cmd=displayKC&externalId=1009458 Which says "Updated Jul 29, 2014", it also does not support being somewhere other than 0x40000000. Xen is the only one that I know of that current supports being somewhere other than 0x40000000. So I am happy to go with "only one of viridian or vmware_hw can be non-zero". Just need to know which way to go. -Don Slutz > Either way, the current 0x4000xxxx leaf handling is somewhat special in > Xen, as the viridian support was hacked in after the Xen leafs were > already present. It is one area I was planning to fix up as part of my > cpuid levelling work for 4.6 > > ~Andrew > > > _______________________________________________ > Xen-devel mailing list > Xen-devel@lists.xen.org > http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel