Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Tue, 22 Sep 2009 12:03:05 -0500
From:      Kevin Day <toasty@dragondata.com>
To:        Kostik Belousov <kostikbel@gmail.com>
Cc:        freebsd-xen@freebsd.org, Larry Baird <lab@gta.com>
Subject:   Re: XEN 5.5.0 and clflush
Message-ID:  <5078471e0909221003g43a125f4s99a1f841616bb184@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <20090922131034.GV47688@deviant.kiev.zoral.com.ua>
References:  <20090922123401.GB29391@gta.com> <20090922131034.GV47688@deviant.kiev.zoral.com.ua>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 8:10 AM, Kostik Belousov <kostikbel@gmail.com>wrote:

>
> I think I will have to disable CLFLUSH support for intel CPUs when
> self-snoop
> is not reported.
>
>
That's the kinda weird part about this though... It's not triggering an
Invalid Instruction, but a GPF. Looking at AMD's description of how CLFLUSH
is supposed to work, I don't see why it's faulting with what looks like a
valid address.

While this is probably far outside the scope of what their entry-level
support techs will understand, I can try raising this as a bug with Citrix
under our support contract if you're confident that this is broken on Xen's
end.



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?5078471e0909221003g43a125f4s99a1f841616bb184>