Re: [Xen-devel] vanderpool articles

[Adam S. <ad...@cf...>]

On Mon, 28 Feb 2005, Tim Freeman wrote:

> 3 of a series of 4 articles about Vanderpool.
>
> Intel Vanderpool holds promise, some pitfalls
> http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=21448
>
> Intel Vanderpool: the thorns, the thorns
> http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=21449
>
> Intel Vanderpoo: More roses, roses
> http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=21450

interesting stuff. i wonder how much of the issue is that the rings 2/3 
are supposed to be gone from EM64T, as the article says:

 	In practice, only rings 0 and 3, the highest and lowest, are
 	commonly used. OSes typically run in ring 0 while user programs
 	are in ring 3. One of the ways the 64-bit extensions to x86 'clean
 	up' the ISA is by losing the middle rings, 1 and 2. Pretty much no
 	one cared that they are gone, except the virtualization folk.

seems like solution is to skip plain EM64T and go to VT enabled EM64T with 
-1 ring.

and there's still no word from AMD on what they got?

finally, part 4 not mentioned in the above links

 	http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=21451