[PATCH] Add VT flag to cpuinfo

[PATCH] Add VT flag to cpuinfo

[Donald D Dugger]

Andrew-

Attached is a trivial patch to 2.6 that will add `vt' to the flags field
of `/proc/cpuinfo' for CPUs that have Intel's virtualization technology.

Signed-off-by: Donald D. Dugger <donald.d.dugger@intel.com>

--
Don Dugger
"Censeo Toto nos in Kansa esse decisse." - D. Gale
Donald.D.Dugger@intel.com
Ph: (303)440-1368

diff -Naur linux-2.6.14/arch/i386/kernel/cpu/proc.c linux-2.6.14-ddd/arch/i386/kernel/cpu/proc.c
--- linux-2.6.14/arch/i386/kernel/cpu/proc.c	2005-10-27 18:02:08.000000000 -0600
+++ linux-2.6.14-ddd/arch/i386/kernel/cpu/proc.c	2005-11-14 14:22:52.000000000 -0700
@@ -44,7 +44,7 @@
 		NULL, NULL, NULL, NULL, NULL, NULL, NULL, NULL,
 
 		/* Intel-defined (#2) */
-		"pni", NULL, NULL, "monitor", "ds_cpl", NULL, NULL, "est",
+		"pni", NULL, NULL, "monitor", "ds_cpl", "vt", NULL, "est",
 		"tm2", NULL, "cid", NULL, NULL, "cx16", "xtpr", NULL,
 		NULL, NULL, NULL, NULL, NULL, NULL, NULL, NULL,
 		NULL, NULL, NULL, NULL, NULL, NULL, NULL, NULL,
diff -Naur linux-2.6.14/arch/x86_64/kernel/setup.c linux-2.6.14-ddd/arch/x86_64/kernel/setup.c
--- linux-2.6.14/arch/x86_64/kernel/setup.c	2005-10-27 18:02:08.000000000 -0600
+++ linux-2.6.14-ddd/arch/x86_64/kernel/setup.c	2005-11-11 14:47:59.000000000 -0700
@@ -1213,7 +1213,7 @@
 		NULL, NULL, NULL, NULL, NULL, NULL, NULL, NULL,
 
 		/* Intel-defined (#2) */
-		"pni", NULL, NULL, "monitor", "ds_cpl", NULL, NULL, "est",
+		"pni", NULL, NULL, "monitor", "ds_cpl", "vt", NULL, "est",
 		"tm2", NULL, "cid", NULL, NULL, "cx16", "xtpr", NULL,
 		NULL, NULL, NULL, NULL, NULL, NULL, NULL, NULL,
 		NULL, NULL, NULL, NULL, NULL, NULL, NULL, NULL,

Re: [PATCH] Add VT flag to cpuinfo

[Andi Kleen]

donald.d.dugger@intel.com (Donald D Dugger) writes:

> Andrew-
> 
> Attached is a trivial patch to 2.6 that will add `vt' to the flags field
> of `/proc/cpuinfo' for CPUs that have Intel's virtualization technology.

The x86-64 tree already has "vmx" for it. What is the correct
name? 

-Andi

RE: [PATCH] Add VT flag to cpuinfo

[Dugger, Donald D]

Andi-

Good guess.  We discuessed it and decided that `vmx' was the best
term so I'll rework the patch to use that name.

BTW, I don't see any reference to `vmx' in the 2.6.14 tree, is
this a change you recently made to your tree?

--
Don Dugger
"Censeo Toto nos in Kansa esse decisse." - D. Gale
Donald.D.Dugger@intel.com
Ph: (303)440-1368 

>-----Original Message-----
>From: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org 
>[mailto:linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org] On Behalf Of Andi Kleen
>Sent: Wednesday, November 30, 2005 6:53 PM
>To: Dugger, Donald D
>Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org; Shah, Rajesh; akpm@osdl.org
>Subject: Re: [PATCH] Add VT flag to cpuinfo
>
>donald.d.dugger@intel.com (Donald D Dugger) writes:
>
>> Andrew-
>> 
>> Attached is a trivial patch to 2.6 that will add `vt' to the 
>flags field
>> of `/proc/cpuinfo' for CPUs that have Intel's virtualization 
>technology.
>
>The x86-64 tree already has "vmx" for it. What is the correct
>name? 
>
>-Andi
>-
>To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe 
>linux-kernel" in
>the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
>More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
>Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/
>

Re: [PATCH] Add VT flag to cpuinfo

[Andi Kleen]

On Wed, Nov 30, 2005 at 03:34:19PM -0800, Dugger, Donald D wrote:
> Andi-
> 
> Good guess.  We discuessed it and decided that `vmx' was the best
> term so I'll rework the patch to use that name.
> 
> BTW, I don't see any reference to `vmx' in the 2.6.14 tree, is
> this a change you recently made to your tree?

2.6.14 is ancient. Check 2.6.15rc* 
Actually I think I changed 32bit too, so your patch is wholly
obsolete unless you want to rename it.

-Andi

Re: [PATCH] Add VT flag to cpuinfo

[Anton Blanchard]

 
> Good guess.  We discuessed it and decided that `vmx' was the best
> term so I'll rework the patch to use that name.
> 
> BTW, I don't see any reference to `vmx' in the 2.6.14 tree, is
> this a change you recently made to your tree?

Unfortunate choice of TLA, VMX is the name for the vector instruction set
on powerpc (otherwise known as altivec).

Anton

RE: [PATCH] Add VT flag to cpuinfo

[Dugger, Donald D]

Andi-

Story of my life (I've had way too many patches that I
sent out just a little too late :-)

No, if you made the same change to the IA32 branch then
that's fine, tnx.

--
Don Dugger
"Censeo Toto nos in Kansa esse decisse." - D. Gale
Donald.D.Dugger@intel.com
Ph: (303)440-1368 

>-----Original Message-----
>From: Andi Kleen [mailto:ak@suse.de] 
>Sent: Wednesday, November 30, 2005 4:42 PM
>To: Dugger, Donald D
>Cc: Andi Kleen; linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org; Shah, Rajesh; 
>akpm@osdl.org
>Subject: Re: [PATCH] Add VT flag to cpuinfo
>
>On Wed, Nov 30, 2005 at 03:34:19PM -0800, Dugger, Donald D wrote:
>> Andi-
>> 
>> Good guess.  We discuessed it and decided that `vmx' was the best
>> term so I'll rework the patch to use that name.
>> 
>> BTW, I don't see any reference to `vmx' in the 2.6.14 tree, is
>> this a change you recently made to your tree?
>
>2.6.14 is ancient. Check 2.6.15rc* 
>Actually I think I changed 32bit too, so your patch is wholly
>obsolete unless you want to rename it.
>
>-Andi
>

Re: [PATCH] Add VT flag to cpuinfo

[Andi Kleen]

On Wed, Nov 30, 2005 at 03:46:09PM -0800, Dugger, Donald D wrote:
> Andi-
> 
> Story of my life (I've had way too many patches that I
> sent out just a little too late :-)

It might be useful if you could confirm "vmx" is the really
official name that will continue to be used to describe that feature
in the future.  We're already stuck with PNI instead of SSE3 and no
need to make that mistake problem. If VT matches the long term naming better
it would be a good idea to still rename it.

-Andi

RE: [PATCH] Add VT flag to cpuinfo

[Dugger, Donald D]

Andi-

As I said, we discussed this internally and the concensus was that
`vmx' was correct.  Especially since this term is used in the
documentation this should be safe.

--
Don Dugger
"Censeo Toto nos in Kansa esse decisse." - D. Gale
Donald.D.Dugger@intel.com
Ph: (303)440-1368 

>-----Original Message-----
>From: Andi Kleen [mailto:ak@suse.de] 
>Sent: Wednesday, November 30, 2005 4:50 PM
>To: Dugger, Donald D
>Cc: Andi Kleen; linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org; Shah, Rajesh; 
>akpm@osdl.org
>Subject: Re: [PATCH] Add VT flag to cpuinfo
>
>On Wed, Nov 30, 2005 at 03:46:09PM -0800, Dugger, Donald D wrote:
>> Andi-
>> 
>> Story of my life (I've had way too many patches that I
>> sent out just a little too late :-)
>
>It might be useful if you could confirm "vmx" is the really
>official name that will continue to be used to describe that feature
>in the future.  We're already stuck with PNI instead of SSE3 and no
>need to make that mistake problem. If VT matches the long term 
>naming better
>it would be a good idea to still rename it.
>
>-Andi
>

RE: [PATCH] Add VT flag to cpuinfo

[Dugger, Donald D]

Well, I really don't see a conflict here, TLA's for x86
architectures are orthogonal to PowerPC and vice versa
so this shouldn't cause any confusion.

--
Don Dugger
"Censeo Toto nos in Kansa esse decisse." - D. Gale
Donald.D.Dugger@intel.com
Ph: (303)440-1368 

>-----Original Message-----
>From: Anton Blanchard [mailto:anton@samba.org] 
>Sent: Thursday, December 01, 2005 9:10 AM
>To: Dugger, Donald D
>Cc: Andi Kleen; linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org; Shah, Rajesh; 
>akpm@osdl.org
>Subject: Re: [PATCH] Add VT flag to cpuinfo
>
> 
>> Good guess.  We discuessed it and decided that `vmx' was the best
>> term so I'll rework the patch to use that name.
>> 
>> BTW, I don't see any reference to `vmx' in the 2.6.14 tree, is
>> this a change you recently made to your tree?
>
>Unfortunate choice of TLA, VMX is the name for the vector 
>instruction set
>on powerpc (otherwise known as altivec).
>
>Anton
>

Re: [PATCH] Add VT flag to cpuinfo

[Anton Blanchard]

> Well, I really don't see a conflict here, TLA's for x86
> architectures are orthogonal to PowerPC and vice versa
> so this shouldn't cause any confusion.

Do you read all of the linux-kernel mailing list? :) Its caused me to
have to look twice on a number of occasions. 

I know it isnt going to be fixed but I do wonder if intel knows how to
use google before creating yet another TLA :)

Anton

Re: [PATCH] Add VT flag to cpuinfo

[Andi Kleen]

On Fri, Dec 02, 2005 at 03:52:05AM +1100, Anton Blanchard wrote:
> 
> > Well, I really don't see a conflict here, TLA's for x86
> > architectures are orthogonal to PowerPC and vice versa
> > so this shouldn't cause any confusion.
> 
> Do you read all of the linux-kernel mailing list? :) Its caused me to
> have to look twice on a number of occasions. 
> 
> I know it isnt going to be fixed but I do wonder if intel knows how to
> use google before creating yet another TLA :)

It would be probably hopeless at least in the 2-6 letter TLA space. 
Every possible TLA has been already used for countless other things.
Just live with the collisions. Or use names instead of them.

cpuinfo flags are deeply architecture specific anyways, so I don't
think it makes much sense to try to get them unique over architectures.
In fact I think ppc doesn't even have a "flags" line. 

-Andi