[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [PATCH] x86/AMD: make HT range dynamic for Fam17 and up
- To: Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@xxxxxxxxxx>
- From: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@xxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 21 Jun 2021 08:20:45 +0200
- Arc-authentication-results: i=1; mx.microsoft.com 1; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=suse.com; dmarc=pass action=none header.from=suse.com; dkim=pass header.d=suse.com; arc=none
- Arc-message-signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=microsoft.com; s=arcselector9901; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-SenderADCheck; bh=ruhE0QKoRuCVYe7RS0x0yN4oNulKQ6DELES75MMD1vI=; b=Knw5IE/4g7Yj8XOU5kLs/oo9qoGIUCseL7OJsSJPmLkdLJbo86wTZz0dsJsP+oDIwq7oDB6TGAOt32ljj1FQMZ01JNc6u+FF9F4l5H5kqFLLx3njq7eamoRdKTSi4Ug3wicz6Qp37ceLK0l3EGj1w5MzN8nvF3qiYObrex+2T5S6FJ+/Qnmtl8pT7EDUeUvBRgIqeGV8FfApniK8dsQYbN2zvvJFN2+nOY1vS7MEdR9GWFqRolvKFWDBjcmN+fVuMGvHcHwYYuuDgZrcxlvlcu+hDeIutVh226ms6sFGisPZHtXILPjM46p9Y54G23IkrUINCOzzz19ckxlcxzKY2A==
- Arc-seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; s=arcselector9901; d=microsoft.com; cv=none; b=DevzNIQ38Q58EImuhosbplUFEBF9r4E4Y4AcSVTg5Ll0/2dvNoKmD3dklvF6czrWULSXOTXdbYXVTDiiabBJghDOCGgkydUH5CGZfJLVlqDrsNTcgTRDR/FCHVoffV95wgDSWbRS2XT25in4aL4HzrU5BvZDALSGjknR5ildNhurHLkQSr6x+YF0DG/43qmhFL4C9sh1MkCWLKDtdjyUVibHrXkdUXoPZDSpMlDSMnT8k7dVLP+Nkyr9ppkOGgRuxzX1ACiUazMH4WHE/HKSc6gtGMnVwHOQlu3s6yQpVh0OaMuKnfp14mG/AYaS45XMK3cTuvhds+P3MKlIdyJX9Q==
- Authentication-results: lists.xenproject.org; dkim=none (message not signed) header.d=none;lists.xenproject.org; dmarc=none action=none header.from=suse.com;
- Cc: Wei Liu <wl@xxxxxxx>, Roger Pau Monné <roger.pau@xxxxxxxxxx>, Igor Druzhinin <igor.druzhinin@xxxxxxxxxx>, "xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Delivery-date: Mon, 21 Jun 2021 06:20:54 +0000
- List-id: Xen developer discussion <xen-devel.lists.xenproject.org>
On 21.06.2021 08:18, Jan Beulich wrote:
> Another aspect I was wondering about is whether
>
> if (paddr_bits > PADDR_BITS)
> paddr_bits = PADDR_BITS;
>
> should apply before or after subtracting the value from
> 80000008.EBX. I was first inclined to make it the more relaxed
> way (applying before reduction), but then thought I'd first leave
> it as is now, on the basis that the PTE layout doesn't change, and
> hence 52 remains the limit for the full address.
Actually that was the wrong way round - the PTE layout argument
suggests I should cap first, then subtract. Which will also simplify
what needs doing for hap_paddr_bits.
Jan
|
