[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] Intel/vpmu: Use Intel VPMU quirk on all family 6 processors
- To: "George.Dunlap@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <George.Dunlap@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "boris.ostrovsky@xxxxxxxxxx" <boris.ostrovsky@xxxxxxxxxx>, "JBeulich@xxxxxxxx" <JBeulich@xxxxxxxx>, "Dugger, Donald D" <donald.d.dugger@xxxxxxxxx>, "Dong, Eddie" <eddie.dong@xxxxxxxxx>, "Nakajima, Jun" <jun.nakajima@xxxxxxxxx>, "Shan, Haitao" <haitao.shan@xxxxxxxxx>
- From: "Auld, Will" <will.auld@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 31 May 2013 03:53:58 +0000
- Accept-language: en-US
- Cc: "Auld, Will" <will.auld@xxxxxxxxx>, "xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Delivery-date: Fri, 31 May 2013 03:54:45 +0000
- List-id: Xen developer discussion <xen-devel.lists.xen.org>
- Thread-index: Ac5dsnoCuYCTypp0Rkq6+iTzk2u3cw==
- Thread-topic: RE: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] Intel/vpmu: Use Intel VPMU quirk on all family 6 processors
Jan, George, et. al.,
Regarding the recent discussion on "[Xen-devel] [PATCH] Intel/vpmu: Use Intel VPMU quirk on all family 6 processors" I believe that George's suggestion is the proper approach for Xen 4.3. Extending the check_pmc_quirk() to return true
for all P6 family processors may be overkill but should cover the issue until we have a better handle on it.
Internally, we are beginning some characterization work but the outcome is uncertain and is likely to take some time. In addition it is unlikely to materially change current issues. So regardless of the outcome, if any, we should move
forward with the expanded coverage in check_pmc_quirk().
Thanks,
Will
|
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
|
