RE: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] "lock cmpxch8b" and split locks

["Puthiyaparambil, Aravindh" <aravindh.puthiyaparambil@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Jun,

I ended up writing a module which checked the IA32_MISC_ENABLE MSR on my
system. I found that it was being set incorrectly for some logical
processors. Bringing up a DomU (prior to fixing up the pfn_info
structure) on one of these processors was the reason why the alignment
check was being thrown.  
This was on a test system which was running a beta BIOS. So thank you
for helping us find this bug. I owe you a beer at the next Xen summit.
:-)

Aravindh

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Nakajima, Jun [mailto:jun.nakajima@xxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Friday, October 07, 2005 3:21 PM
> To: Keir Fraser; Puthiyaparambil, Aravindh
> Cc: Koren, Bradley J; xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Subrahmanian,
Raj;
> Vessey, Bruce A
> Subject: RE: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] "lock cmpxch8b" and split locks
> 
> Keir Fraser wrote:
> > Nice try, but the first sentence of your quote applies only to
> > ordinary (non-LOCKed) memory accesses. Section 7.1.2.2 states that
> > "The integrity of a bus lock is not affected by the alignment of the
> > memory field. The LOCK semantics are followed for as many bus cycles
> > as necessary to update the entire operand."
> >
> > I'm sure you get away with this in practise. 64-bit quantities are
the
> > only simple type that does not get naturally aligned in x86 C ABI.
> > cmpxchg8b is a pretty rare instruction and most users would be very
> > careful to ensure correct alignment in the cases it is used. Luckily
> > it was easy for us to make the necessary changes too.
> 
> But we don't want to see unexpected #AC in ring0. Can check the bit 4
> (Split-Lock Disable) and 8 (Suppress Lock Enable) of IA32_MISC_ENABLE
> MSR (0x1a0)? You may have set the bit 4. You want to set the bit 8,
not
> bit 4.


_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel