[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Xen-devel] early_cpu_init() and identify_cpu()


  • To: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@xxxxxxxxxx>, <xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • From: Keir Fraser <keir@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2007 17:26:43 +0100
  • Delivery-date: Fri, 13 Jul 2007 09:24:37 -0700
  • List-id: Xen developer discussion <xen-devel.lists.xensource.com>
  • Thread-index: AcfFapkm15IwTjFdEdy48QAX8io7RQ==
  • Thread-topic: [Xen-devel] early_cpu_init() and identify_cpu()

On 13/7/07 17:16, "Jan Beulich" <jbeulich@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> Is there any reason (other than having things inherited this way from Linux)
> that
> we cannot call identify_cpu() for the boot CPU at the end of early_cpu_init()
> rather than explicitly from __start_xen()? And if not, it would seem
> reasonable
> to me to at once move the two CR4 twiddling pieces out of __start_xen, too.
> 
> (I'm not asking because I want to beautify the code, but because I want the
> identify to happen earlier, namely I want to fully set up the VESA console as
> early as possible, but there I'd like to be able to set MTRRs, which in turn
> depends on identify_cpu() having executed.

Isn't it a fairly safe bet that the BIOS will have done this for us and, if
not, that the penalty is a performance loss (probably using WB or UC instead
of WC) rather than a correctness issue? And hence, if we bother to update
the MTRRs at all, then it can at least be left until later in the boot?

 -- Keir


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


 


Rackspace

Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our
servers 24x7x365 and backed by RackSpace's Fanatical Support®.