On Wed, Jul 20, 2011 at 09:58:47AM +0200, Jan Kiszka wrote:
> On 2011-07-18 20:26, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, Jul 08, 2011 at 02:40:53PM -0400, Bandan Das wrote:
> >> I have already discussed this a bit with Nadav but hoping someone
> >> else has any other ideas/clues/suggestions/comments. With recent versions
> >> of the
> >> kernel (The last I tried is 3.0-rc5 with nVMX patches already merged), my
> >> L1 guest
> >> always hangs when I start L2.
> >>
> >> My setup : The host, L1 and L2 all are FC15 with the host running 3.0-rc5.
> >> When L1 is up
> >> and running, I start L2 from L1. Within a minute or two, both L1 and L2
> >> hang. Although, if
> >> if I run tracing on the host, I see :
> >>
> >> ...
> >> qemu-kvm-19756 [013] 153774.856178: kvm_exit: reason APIC_ACCESS rip
> >> 0xffffffff81025098 info 1380 0
> >> qemu-kvm-19756 [013] 153774.856189: kvm_exit: reason VMREAD rip
> >> 0xffffffffa00d5127 info 0 0
> >> qemu-kvm-19756 [013] 153774.856191: kvm_exit: reason VMREAD rip
> >> 0xffffffffa00d5127 info 0 0
> >> ...
> >>
> >> My point being that I only see kvm_exit messages but no kvm_entry. Does
> >> this mean that the VCPUs
> >> are somehow stuck in L2 ?
> >>
> >> Anyway, since this setup was running fine for me on older kernels, and I
> >> couldn't
> >> identify any significant changes in nVMX, I sifted through the other KVM
> >> changes and found this :
> >>
> >> --
> >> commit 1aa8ceef0312a6aae7dd863a120a55f1637b361d
> >> Author: Nikola Ciprich <extmaill...@linuxbox.cz>
> >> Date: Wed Mar 9 23:36:51 2011 +0100
> >>
> >> KVM: fix kvmclock regression due to missing clock update
> >>
> >> commit 387b9f97750444728962b236987fbe8ee8cc4f8c moved
> >> kvm_request_guest_time_update(vcpu),
> >> breaking 32bit SMP guests using kvm-clock. Fix this by moving (new)
> >> clock update function
> >> to proper place.
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Nikola Ciprich <nikola.cipr...@linuxbox.cz>
> >> Acked-by: Zachary Amsden <zams...@redhat.com>
> >> Signed-off-by: Avi Kivity <a...@redhat.com>
> >>
> >> index 01f08a6..f1e4025 100644 (file)
> >> --- a/arch/x86/kvm/x86.c
> >> +++ b/arch/x86/kvm/x86.c
> >> @@ -2127,8 +2127,8 @@ void kvm_arch_vcpu_load(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, int
> >> cpu)
> >> if (check_tsc_unstable()) {
> >> kvm_x86_ops->adjust_tsc_offset(vcpu, -tsc_delta);
> >> vcpu->arch.tsc_catchup = 1;
> >> - kvm_make_request(KVM_REQ_CLOCK_UPDATE, vcpu);
> >> }
> >> + kvm_make_request(KVM_REQ_CLOCK_UPDATE, vcpu);
> >> if (vcpu->cpu != cpu)
> >> kvm_migrate_timers(vcpu);
> >> vcpu->cpu = cpu;
> >> --
> >>
> >> If I revert this change, my L1/L2 guests run fine. This ofcourse, just
> >> hides the bug
> >> because on my machine, check_tsc_unstable() returns false.
> >>
> >> I found out from Nadav that when KVM decides to run L2, it will write
> >> vmcs01->tsc_offset + vmcs12->tsc_offset to the active TSC_OFFSET which
> >> seems right.
> >> But I verified that, if instead, I just write
> >> vmcs01->tsc_offset to TSC_OFFSET in prepare_vmcs02(), I don't see the bug
> >> anymore.
> >>
> >> Not sure where to go from here. I would appreciate if any one has any
> >> ideas.
> >>
> >>
> >> Bandan
> >
> > Using guests TSC value when performing TSC adjustments is wrong. Can
> > you please try the following patch, which skips TSC adjustments if
> > vcpu is in guest mode.
> >
> > diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/x86.c b/arch/x86/kvm/x86.c
> > index 2b76ae3..44c90d1 100644
> > --- a/arch/x86/kvm/x86.c
> > +++ b/arch/x86/kvm/x86.c
> > @@ -1096,6 +1096,9 @@ static int kvm_guest_time_update(struct kvm_vcpu *v)
> > s64 kernel_ns, max_kernel_ns;
> > u64 tsc_timestamp;
> >
> > + if (is_guest_mode(v))
> > + return 0;
> > +
> > /* Keep irq disabled to prevent changes to the clock */
> > local_irq_save(flags);
> > kvm_get_msr(v, MSR_IA32_TSC, &tsc_timestamp);
> > @@ -2214,6 +2217,9 @@ void kvm_arch_vcpu_load(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, int
> > cpu)
> > tsc_delta = !vcpu->arch.last_guest_tsc ? 0 :
> > tsc - vcpu->arch.last_guest_tsc;
> >
> > + if (is_guest_mode(vcpu))
> > + tsc_delta = 0;
> > +
> > if (tsc_delta < 0)
> > mark_tsc_unstable("KVM discovered backwards TSC");
> > if (check_tsc_unstable()) {
> > @@ -2234,7 +2240,8 @@ void kvm_arch_vcpu_put(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
> > {
> > kvm_x86_ops->vcpu_put(vcpu);
> > kvm_put_guest_fpu(vcpu);
> > - kvm_get_msr(vcpu, MSR_IA32_TSC, &vcpu->arch.last_guest_tsc);
> > + if (!is_guest_mode(vcpu))
> > + kvm_get_msr(vcpu, MSR_IA32_TSC, &vcpu->arch.last_guest_tsc);
> > }
> >
> > static int is_efer_nx(void)
> > @@ -5717,7 +5724,8 @@ static int vcpu_enter_guest(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
> > if (hw_breakpoint_active())
> > hw_breakpoint_restore();
> >
> > - kvm_get_msr(vcpu, MSR_IA32_TSC, &vcpu->arch.last_guest_tsc);
> > + if (!is_guest_mode(vcpu))
> > + kvm_get_msr(vcpu, MSR_IA32_TSC, &vcpu->arch.last_guest_tsc);
> >
> > vcpu->mode = OUTSIDE_GUEST_MODE;
> > smp_wmb();
>
> That unfortunately does not fix the L1 lockups I get here - unless I
> confine L1 to a single CPU. It looks like (don't have all symbols for
> the guest kernel ATM) that we are stuck in processing a timer IRQ.
>
> Jan
Is L1 using kvmclock?
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
