From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Ian Campbell Subject: Re: [xen-unstable test] 57852: regressions - FAIL Date: Mon, 15 Jun 2015 09:57:08 +0100 Message-ID: <1434358628.13744.11.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> <1433765763.7108.482.camel@citrix.com> <1433838390.7108.523.camel@citrix.com> <5576CE2602000078000827F6@mail.emea.novell.com> <1433926213.30003.2.camel@citrix.com> <557821330200007800082F1C@mail.emea.novell.com> <1433934087.30003.32.camel@citrix.com> <55784041020000780008304A@mail.emea.novell.com> <1433940966.30003.81.camel@citrix.com> <55785B9F020000780008316C@mail.emea.novell.com> <1433945294.30003.83.camel@citrix.com> <55794EB602000078000835B4@mail.emea.novell.com> <1434012334.30003.121.camel@citrix.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from mail6.bemta3.messagelabs.com ([195.245.230.39]) by lists.xen.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1Z4QCf-0003Q2-Td for xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org; Mon, 15 Jun 2015 08:57:14 +0000 In-Reply-To: <1434012334.30003.121.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 Thu, 2015-06-11 at 09:45 +0100, Ian Campbell wrote: > On Thu, 2015-06-11 at 08:02 +0100, Jan Beulich wrote: > > >>> On 10.06.15 at 16:08, wrote: > > > On Wed, 2015-06-10 at 14:45 +0100, Jan Beulich wrote: > > >> So if we're going to approach Intel with this - will you or should I? > > > > > > I think it'd be best coming from you. > > > > Just have sent it off; in putting together the technical details it > > became clear that elbling* indeed are at a newer microcode level, > > so I think this at least slightly raises the chances of an update to > > help fiano* (if so I of course wonder why the vendor hasn't made > > a suitable BIOS update available yet). > > It's possible that there is one which we've not applied... I've now run a bunch of adhoc runs with the microcode update in place (from 0x416 to 0x428 on these particular machines): 58468 fiano0 guest-stop 58479 fiano0 guest-stop 58485 fiano0 windows-install 58494 fiano0 guest-stop 58499 fiano1 guest-stop 58509 fiano1 windows-install 58516 fiano1 guest-stop 58527* fiano0 guest-stop 58531 fiano0 guest-stop 58534 fiano0 guest-stop 58537 fiano0 guest-stop 58538 fiano1 guest-stop 58544 fiano1 guest-stop 58547 fiano1 guest-stop 58550 fiano0 guest-stop 58555 fiano0 guest-stop 58557 fiano0 guest-stop 58560 fiano1 guest-stop 58563 fiano1 guest-stop 58565 fiano1 windows-install (*) rebuilt binaries because previous build was gc'd, same versions as before. So 3/20 = 15% failure rate (fiano0: 1/11=9%; fiano1: 2/9=22%). Which is better than the ~50% seen at the start of this thread, so it is worth applying the ucode update I think (and it would have been regardless the right thing to do), I do think a 15-20% failure rate might be worthy of further investigation by Intel too, since the failure rate with no-apicv was 1/13 = 7% (fiano0: 1/7=14%, fiano1: 0/6=0%), although those numbers are less significant due to fewer runs. Ian.