Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH 2/2] x86/Intel: Add missing Merom, Westmere, and Nehelem models.

[Dietmar Hahn <dietmar.hahn@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Am Montag 04 März 2013, 13:01:51 schrieb Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk:
> On Mon, Mar 04, 2013 at 09:15:35AM +0100, Dietmar Hahn wrote:
> > Am Freitag 01 März 2013, 15:53:11 schrieb Jan Beulich:
> > > >>> On 01.03.13 at 15:31, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@xxxxxxxxxx> 
> > > >>> wrote:
> > > > Mainly 22 (Merom-L); 30 (Nehelem); and 37, 44 (Westmere).
> > > 
> > > Assuming Intel confirms this, I'm fine with adding those.
> > > 
> > > > --- a/xen/arch/x86/hvm/vmx/vpmu_core2.c
> > > > +++ b/xen/arch/x86/hvm/vmx/vpmu_core2.c
> > > > @@ -738,14 +738,25 @@ int vmx_vpmu_initialise(struct vcpu *v, unsigned 
> > > > int vpmu_flags)
> > > >      {
> > > >          switch ( cpu_model )
> > > >          {
> > > > +        /* Core2: */
> > > >          case 15: /* original 65 nm celeron/pentium/core2/xeon, 
> > > > "Merom"/"Conroe" */
> > > > +        case 22: /* single-core 65 nm celeron/core2solo 
> > > > "Merom-L"/"Conroe-L" */
> > > >          case 23: /* current 45 nm celeron/core2/xeon 
> > > > "Penryn"/"Wolfdale" */
> > > > -        case 26: /* 45 nm nehalem, "Bloomfield" */
> > > >          case 29: /* six-core 45 nm xeon "Dunnington" */
> > > > +
> > > >          case 42: /* SandyBridge */
> > > >          case 45: /* SandyBridge, "Romely-EP" */
> > > > +
> > > > +        /* Nehelem: */
> > > 
> > > Nehalem
> > > 
> > > > +        case 26: /* 45 nm nehalem, "Bloomfield" */
> > > > +        case 30: /* 45 nm nehalem, "Lynnfield" */
> > > >          case 46: /* 45 nm nehalem-ex, "Beckton" */
> > > > +
> > > > +        /* Westmere: */
> > > > +        case 37: /* 32 nm nehalem, "Clarkdale" */
> > > > +        case 44: /* 32 nm nehalem, "Gulftown" */
> > > >          case 47: /* 32 nm Xeon E7 */
> > > > +
> > > >          case 58: /* IvyBridge */
> > > >          case 62: /* IvyBridge EP */
> > > >              ret = core2_vpmu_initialise(v, vpmu_flags);
> > > 
> > > I guess the main reason these weren't here is that no-one actively
> > > tested the code on them. Fujitsu has been completing this list as
> > > they ran into systems missing here yet they were able to test on...
> > 
> > Yes we did some extensions but only with processors we were able to test
> > because we ran into trouble with some of these.
> 
> What were those problems? Could you report them on xen-devel please?

This is old stuff:
http://lists.xen.org/archives/html/xen-devel/2010-11/msg01157.html

Dietmar.

-- 
Company details: http://ts.fujitsu.com/imprint.html

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel