Il 04/09/2014 14:24, Wanpeng Li ha scritto:
> On Thu, Sep 04, 2014 at 01:33:10PM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>> Il 04/09/2014 11:53, Paolo Bonzini ha scritto:
>>> Il 03/09/2014 20:25, Chris J Arges ha scritto:
> I'm not sure about the reason for the warp, but indeed the offset and
> u
On Thu, Sep 04, 2014 at 01:33:10PM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>Il 04/09/2014 11:53, Paolo Bonzini ha scritto:
>> Il 03/09/2014 20:25, Chris J Arges ha scritto:
>>>
I'm not sure about the reason for the warp, but indeed the offset and
uptime match (I'll check them against the trace tomor
Il 04/09/2014 11:53, Paolo Bonzini ha scritto:
> Il 03/09/2014 20:25, Chris J Arges ha scritto:
>>
>>> I'm not sure about the reason for the warp, but indeed the offset and
>>> uptime match (I'll check them against the trace tomorrow) so it's "just"
>>> that the VM's TSC base is not taken into acc
Il 03/09/2014 20:25, Chris J Arges ha scritto:
>
>> I'm not sure about the reason for the warp, but indeed the offset and
>> uptime match (I'll check them against the trace tomorrow) so it's "just"
>> that the VM's TSC base is not taken into account correctly.
>>
>> Can you gather another trace wi
> I'm not sure about the reason for the warp, but indeed the offset and
> uptime match (I'll check them against the trace tomorrow) so it's "just"
> that the VM's TSC base is not taken into account correctly.
>
> Can you gather another trace with the problematic patch reverted?
>
> Paolo
>
Her
Il 03/09/2014 18:23, Chris J Arges ha scritto:
> $ uptime
> 16:18:31 up 53 min, 1 user, load average: 1.16, 0.39, 0.17
>
> $ grep -m1 model.name /proc/cpuinfo
> model name : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2697 v3 @ 2.60GHz
>
> Here is the output of the command:
> qemu-system-x86_64 -enable-kvm -
On 09/03/2014 09:59 AM, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> Il 02/09/2014 21:57, Chris J Arges ha scritto:
>> Seconds get from host: 1409687073
>> Seconds get from kvmclock: 1409333034
>> Offset:-354039
>> offset too large!
>> Check the stability of raw cycle ...
>> Worst warp -3544626
On 09/03/2014 09:47 AM, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> Il 02/09/2014 21:57, Chris J Arges ha scritto:
Can you please trace the test using trace-cmd
(http://www.linux-kvm.org/page/Tracing) and send the output?
Paolo
>> Paolo,
>>
>> I have posted the trace data here:
>> http://peop
Il 02/09/2014 21:57, Chris J Arges ha scritto:
> Seconds get from host: 1409687073
> Seconds get from kvmclock: 1409333034
> Offset:-354039
> offset too large!
> Check the stability of raw cycle ...
> Worst warp -354462672821748
> Total vcpus: 2
> Test loops: 1000
> Tot
Il 02/09/2014 21:57, Chris J Arges ha scritto:
>> > Can you please trace the test using trace-cmd
>> > (http://www.linux-kvm.org/page/Tracing) and send the output?
>> >
>> > Paolo
>> >
> Paolo,
>
> I have posted the trace data here:
> http://people.canonical.com/~arges/kvm/trace.dat.xz
Can you
On 08/31/2014 11:05 AM, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> Il 29/08/2014 23:05, Chris J Arges ha scritto:
>> And indeed there is a condition where matched && already_matched are
>> both true. In this case we don't zero or increment nr_vcpus_matched_tsc.
>> Incrementing nr_vcpus_matched_tsc in that last else
Il 29/08/2014 23:05, Chris J Arges ha scritto:
> And indeed there is a condition where matched && already_matched are
> both true. In this case we don't zero or increment nr_vcpus_matched_tsc.
> Incrementing nr_vcpus_matched_tsc in that last else clause allows the
> test to pass; however this is id
On 08/29/2014 04:08 PM, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> Il 29/08/2014 19:36, Chris J Arges ha scritto:
>> I still get failures with the following test, I actually tested on
>> multiple machines with identical hardware and the same failure occurred.
>> In v3.13/v3.16 series kernels this passes. I'll look i
Il 29/08/2014 19:36, Chris J Arges ha scritto:
> I still get failures with the following test, I actually tested on
> multiple machines with identical hardware and the same failure occurred.
> In v3.13/v3.16 series kernels this passes. I'll look into which commit
> changed this result for me. I sus
On 08/29/2014 12:36 PM, Chris J Arges wrote:
> On 08/27/2014 05:05 PM, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>>
>>
>> - Messaggio originale -
>>> Da: "Chris J Arges"
>>> A: "Paolo Bonzini" , kvm@vger.kernel.org
>>> Inviato: Mercole
On 08/27/2014 05:05 PM, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>
>
> - Messaggio originale -
>> Da: "Chris J Arges"
>> A: "Paolo Bonzini" , kvm@vger.kernel.org
>> Inviato: Mercoledì, 27 agosto 2014 23:24:14
>> Oggetto: kvm-unit-test failures (was
- Messaggio originale -
> Da: "Chris J Arges"
> A: "Paolo Bonzini" , kvm@vger.kernel.org
> Inviato: Mercoledì, 27 agosto 2014 23:24:14
> Oggetto: kvm-unit-test failures (was: [PATCH 1/2 v3] add check parameter to
> run_tests configuration)
>
>
> Thanks, looks good. Are there more failures?
>
> Paolo
>
Paolo,
Thanks for applying those patches!
I now only see the two failures on my machine:
model name : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2697 v3 @ 2.60GHz
I'm running with the tip of kvm master:
0ac625df43ce9d085d4ff54c1f739611f4308b13 (Me
18 matches
Mail list logo
