From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Ian Campbell Subject: Re: [xen-unstable test] 57852: regressions - FAIL Date: Mon, 8 Jun 2015 13:16:03 +0100 Message-ID: <1433765763.7108.482.camel@citrix.com> References: <1433493915.7108.138.camel@citrix.com> <5571814C02000078000812F1@mail.emea.novell.com> <1433495266.7108.145.camel@citrix.com> <5571858C020000780008132E@mail.emea.novell.com> <1433501300.7108.208.camel@citrix.com> <557569610200007800081D4C@mail.emea.novell.com> <1433753590.7108.392.camel@citrix.com> <557579500200007800081DF0@mail.emea.novell.com> <1433755652.7108.405.camel@citrix.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from mail6.bemta14.messagelabs.com ([193.109.254.103]) by lists.xen.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1Z1vyK-0008N3-A5 for xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org; Mon, 08 Jun 2015 12:16:08 +0000 In-Reply-To: <1433755652.7108.405.camel@citrix.com> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org To: Jan Beulich Cc: Andrew Cooper , ian.jackson@eu.citrix.com, xen-devel List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org On Mon, 2015-06-08 at 10:27 +0100, Ian Campbell wrote: > On Mon, 2015-06-08 at 10:15 +0100, Jan Beulich wrote: > > >>> On 08.06.15 at 10:53, wrote: > > > That's 6/14 (43%) failure rate on fiano0 and 2/10 (20%) on fiano1. Which > > > differs form the apparent xen-unstable failure rate. But I wouldn't take > > > this as evidence that the two systems differ significantly, despite how > > > the unstable results looked at first glance. > > > > So we can basically rule out just one of the hosts being the culprit; > > it's either both or our software. Considering that (again at the > > example of the recent 4.2 flight) the guest is apparently waiting for > > a timer (or other) interrupt (on a HLT instruction), this is very likely > > interrupt delivery related, yet (as said before, albeit wrongly for > > 4.3) 4.2 doesn't have APICV support yet (4.3 only lack the option > > to disable it), so it can't be that (alone). > > > > Looking at the hardware - are fiano[01], in terms of CPU and > > chipset, perhaps the newest or oldest in the pool? (I'm trying to > > make myself a picture of what debugging options we have.) > > I don't know much about the hardware in the pool other than what can be > gathered from the serial and dmesg logs. > > http://logs.test-lab.xenproject.org/osstest/logs/58028/test-amd64-amd64-xl-qemuu-win7-amd64/info.html > > From the serial log and this: > > Jun 6 12:09:27.089020 (XEN) VMX: Supported advanced features: > Jun 6 12:09:27.089052 (XEN) - APIC MMIO access virtualisation > Jun 6 12:09:27.097051 (XEN) - APIC TPR shadow > Jun 6 12:09:27.097088 (XEN) - Extended Page Tables (EPT) > Jun 6 12:09:27.097118 (XEN) - Virtual-Processor Identifiers (VPID) > Jun 6 12:09:27.105066 (XEN) - Virtual NMI > Jun 6 12:09:27.105100 (XEN) - MSR direct-access bitmap > Jun 6 12:09:27.105130 (XEN) - Unrestricted Guest Running with no-apicv seems to have disabled these three: > Jun 6 12:09:27.113269 (XEN) - APIC Register Virtualization > Jun 6 12:09:27.113290 (XEN) - Virtual Interrupt Delivery > Jun 6 12:09:27.113328 (XEN) - Posted Interrupt Processing Is that expected? The adhoc run passed, but that's not statistically significant. Ian.