On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 11:29:54PM +, Richard Purdie wrote:
> ... and if I remember rightly, the CPU features the kvm* options
> provide vary quite widely and wasn't consistent.
How so? Please elaborate so that we can fix those.
Btw, your reproducer works fine with -cpu kvm32 - only vncviewer
On Fri, 2016-03-11 at 17:28 -0500, Bruce Ashfield wrote:
> On 2016-03-11 5:16 PM, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> > On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 08:18:23PM +0100, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> > > Somebody got it wrong 10-ish years ago, and nobody has ever
> > > checked since.
> > >
> > > But, don't use qemu32 or qe
On 2016-03-11 5:16 PM, Borislav Petkov wrote:
On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 08:18:23PM +0100, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
Somebody got it wrong 10-ish years ago, and nobody has ever checked since.
But, don't use qemu32 or qemu64. Use kvm32 and kvm64, or better
something like the host you run on ("-cpu Neha
On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 08:18:23PM +0100, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> Somebody got it wrong 10-ish years ago, and nobody has ever checked since.
>
> But, don't use qemu32 or qemu64. Use kvm32 and kvm64, or better
> something like the host you run on ("-cpu Nehalem", "-cpu SandyBridge",
> "-cpu Haswell
On 11/03/2016 14:40, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 01:23:56PM +, One Thousand Gnomes wrote:
>> > Pentium Pro has MTRR, PAT came later.
> Yep, this page says so too:
>
> http://www.cpu-world.com/CPUs/Pentium-II/Intel-Pentium%20Pro%20200%201%20MB%20-%20GJ80521EX200%201M%20%2
On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 01:23:56PM +, One Thousand Gnomes wrote:
> Pentium Pro has MTRR, PAT came later.
Yep, this page says so too:
http://www.cpu-world.com/CPUs/Pentium-II/Intel-Pentium%20Pro%20200%201%20MB%20-%20GJ80521EX200%201M%20%28BP80521200%201M%29.html
> I believe the qemu32 CPU isn
On Thu, 10 Mar 2016 20:19:33 +0100
Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 02:04:29PM -0500, Paul Gortmaker wrote:
> > So, I guess that is a qemu bug? If there is no real silicon out there
> > that has no MTRR but does claim PAT, then qemu32 is a flawed CPU type?
>
> Well, AFAICT, "q
On Thu, 2016-03-10 at 22:07 +0100, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 01:24:11PM -0700, Toshi Kani wrote:
> > I am not familiar with PPRO_FEATURES,
>
> That's the feature bits of the "qemu32" model, and others, in qemu.
>
> > but shouldn't 'flags' in /proc/cpuinfo show "pat" when X8
On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 01:24:11PM -0700, Toshi Kani wrote:
> I am not familiar with PPRO_FEATURES,
That's the feature bits of the "qemu32" model, and others, in qemu.
> but shouldn't 'flags' in /proc/cpuinfo show "pat" when X86_FEATURE_PAT is set?
static void early_init_intel(struct cpuinfo_x86
On Thu, 2016-03-10 at 20:20 +0100, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 01:04:21PM -0700, Toshi Kani wrote:
> > I will send a patch that sets PAT disabled when MTRR is disabled. This
> > will solve the Paul's issue. His qemu32 model does not support PAT,
> > either.
>
> It does, see
On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 01:04:21PM -0700, Toshi Kani wrote:
> I will send a patch that sets PAT disabled when MTRR is disabled. This
> will solve the Paul's issue. His qemu32 model does not support PAT,
> either.
It does, see my other mail. We need to figure out first why is
pat_init() being cal
On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 02:04:29PM -0500, Paul Gortmaker wrote:
> So, I guess that is a qemu bug? If there is no real silicon out there
> that has no MTRR but does claim PAT, then qemu32 is a flawed CPU type?
Well, AFAICT, "qemu32" is emulating something PPRO-like:
#define PPRO_FEATURES (CPUID_F
On Thu, 2016-03-10 at 14:04 -0500, Paul Gortmaker wrote:
> [Re: runtime regression with "x86/mm/pat: Emulate PAT when it is
> disabled"] On 10/03/2016 (Thu 18:20) Borislav Petkov wrote:
>
> > On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 09:49:51AM -0700, Toshi Kani wrote:
> > >
On Thu, 2016-03-10 at 18:20 +0100, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 09:49:51AM -0700, Toshi Kani wrote:
> > This confirms the issue - QEMU's virtual Intel CPU does not support
> > MTRR.
> >
> > When MTRR is disabled, the kernel does not call pat_init().
> > pat_enabled() is still
[Re: runtime regression with "x86/mm/pat: Emulate PAT when it is disabled"] On
10/03/2016 (Thu 18:20) Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 09:49:51AM -0700, Toshi Kani wrote:
> > This confirms the issue - QEMU's virtual Intel CPU does not support MTRR.
> &
On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 09:49:51AM -0700, Toshi Kani wrote:
> This confirms the issue - QEMU's virtual Intel CPU does not support MTRR.
>
> When MTRR is disabled, the kernel does not call pat_init(). pat_enabled()
> is still set to true when CONFIG_X86_PAT is set. CONFIG_X86_PAT depends on
> CO
On Thu, 2016-03-10 at 09:42 -0500, Paul Gortmaker wrote:
> [Re: runtime regression with "x86/mm/pat: Emulate PAT when it is
> disabled"] On 07/03/2016 (Mon 18:35) Toshi Kani wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 2016-03-07 at 17:56 -0700, Toshi Kani wrote:
>
> [...]
>
>
[Re: runtime regression with "x86/mm/pat: Emulate PAT when it is disabled"] On
07/03/2016 (Mon 18:35) Toshi Kani wrote:
> On Mon, 2016-03-07 at 17:56 -0700, Toshi Kani wrote:
[...]
> And also an output of /proc/cpuinfo, please?
Here is the output of /proc/cpuinfo in the gues
On Tue, 2016-03-08 at 11:03 -0500, Paul Gortmaker wrote:
> [Re: runtime regression with "x86/mm/pat: Emulate PAT when it is
> disabled"] On 08/03/2016 (Tue 09:13) Toshi Kani wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> >
> > Yes, I have these directories, but I do not see anything
[Re: runtime regression with "x86/mm/pat: Emulate PAT when it is disabled"] On
08/03/2016 (Tue 09:13) Toshi Kani wrote:
[...]
>
> Yes, I have these directories, but I do not see anything under them... Now
> that I do not think there is anything unique in your .config file,
On Mon, 2016-03-07 at 22:28 -0500, Paul Gortmaker wrote:
> [Re: runtime regression with "x86/mm/pat: Emulate PAT when it is
> disabled"] On 07/03/2016 (Mon 18:35) Toshi Kani wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 2016-03-07 at 17:56 -0700, Toshi Kani wrote:
> > > On Mon, 2016-03
On Mon, 2016-03-07 at 22:16 -0500, Paul Gortmaker wrote:
> [Re: runtime regression with "x86/mm/pat: Emulate PAT when it is
> disabled"] On 07/03/2016 (Mon 17:56) Toshi Kani wrote:
>
> [..]
>
>
> > > > It may have seemed working before, but you did not h
[Re: runtime regression with "x86/mm/pat: Emulate PAT when it is disabled"] On
07/03/2016 (Mon 18:35) Toshi Kani wrote:
> On Mon, 2016-03-07 at 17:56 -0700, Toshi Kani wrote:
> > On Mon, 2016-03-07 at 18:53 -0500, Paul Gortmaker wrote:
> > > [Re: runtime regression w
[Re: runtime regression with "x86/mm/pat: Emulate PAT when it is disabled"] On
07/03/2016 (Mon 17:56) Toshi Kani wrote:
[..]
> > > It may have seemed working before, but you did not have WC configured
> > > to PAT without calling pat_init(). There was not a pr
On Mon, 2016-03-07 at 17:56 -0700, Toshi Kani wrote:
> On Mon, 2016-03-07 at 18:53 -0500, Paul Gortmaker wrote:
> > [Re: runtime regression with "x86/mm/pat: Emulate PAT when it is
> > disabled"] On 07/03/2016 (Mon 16:38) Toshi Kani wrote:
> >
> > >
On Mon, 2016-03-07 at 18:53 -0500, Paul Gortmaker wrote:
> [Re: runtime regression with "x86/mm/pat: Emulate PAT when it is
> disabled"] On 07/03/2016 (Mon 16:38) Toshi Kani wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 2016-03-07 at 16:08 -0500, Paul Gortmaker wrote:
> > > [droppin
[Re: runtime regression with "x86/mm/pat: Emulate PAT when it is disabled"] On
07/03/2016 (Mon 16:38) Toshi Kani wrote:
> On Mon, 2016-03-07 at 16:08 -0500, Paul Gortmaker wrote:
> > [dropping oe list and lkml since attaching dmesg files.]
> >
[...]
> > > Ye
On Mon, 2016-03-07 at 16:08 -0500, Paul Gortmaker wrote:
> [dropping oe list and lkml since attaching dmesg files.]
>
> [Re: runtime regression with "x86/mm/pat: Emulate PAT when it is
> disabled"] On 07/03/2016 (Mon 09:03) Toshi Kani wrote:
>
> > On Sun,
On Sun, 2016-03-06 at 19:35 -0500, Paul Gortmaker wrote:
> [Re: runtime regression with "x86/mm/pat: Emulate PAT when it is
> disabled"] On 04/03/2016 (Fri 15:12) Toshi Kani wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 2016-03-04 at 13:37 -0500, Paul Gortmaker wrote:
> > > [Re: r
[Re: runtime regression with "x86/mm/pat: Emulate PAT when it is disabled"] On
04/03/2016 (Fri 15:12) Toshi Kani wrote:
> On Fri, 2016-03-04 at 13:37 -0500, Paul Gortmaker wrote:
> > [Re: runtime regression with "x86/mm/pat: Emulate PAT when it is
> > disabled&quo
On Fri, 2016-03-04 at 13:37 -0500, Paul Gortmaker wrote:
> [Re: runtime regression with "x86/mm/pat: Emulate PAT when it is
> disabled"] On 03/03/2016 (Thu 22:02) Toshi Kani wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 2016-03-03 at 15:59 -0500, Paul Gortmaker wrote:
:
> > >
> &
[Re: runtime regression with "x86/mm/pat: Emulate PAT when it is disabled"] On
03/03/2016 (Thu 22:02) Toshi Kani wrote:
> On Thu, 2016-03-03 at 15:59 -0500, Paul Gortmaker wrote:
> > So, the yocto folks moved from 4.1 to 4.4 and one of their automated
> > qemu x86-32 b
On Thu, 2016-03-03 at 15:59 -0500, Paul Gortmaker wrote:
> So, the yocto folks moved from 4.1 to 4.4 and one of their automated
> qemu x86-32 boot tests started failing. None of the yocto details seem
> to matter since I offered to help and I've repropduced it using 100%
> mainline kernels and a g
[runtime regression with "x86/mm/pat: Emulate PAT when it is disabled"] On
03/03/2016 (Thu 15:59) Paul Gortmaker wrote:
> So, the yocto folks moved from 4.1 to 4.4 and one of their automated
> qemu x86-32 boot tests started failing. None of the yocto details seem
> to matter
So, the yocto folks moved from 4.1 to 4.4 and one of their automated
qemu x86-32 boot tests started failing. None of the yocto details seem
to matter since I offered to help and I've repropduced it using 100%
mainline kernels and a generic distro toolchain as well.
The test case is slightly compl
35 matches
Mail list logo