From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@citrix.com>
Subject: Re: [xen-unstable test] 33690: regressions - FAIL
Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2015 14:49:47 +0000
Message-ID: <54C6540B.7080506@citrix.com>
References: <osstest-33690-mainreport@xen.org>	<54C62D560200007800059615@mail.emea.novell.com>
	<54C63560020000780005967F@mail.emea.novell.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Return-path: <xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org>
Received: from mail6.bemta3.messagelabs.com ([195.245.230.39])
	by lists.xen.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72)
	(envelope-from <Andrew.Cooper3@citrix.com>) id 1YFkzG-0004VA-UU
	for xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org; Mon, 26 Jan 2015 14:49:59 +0000
In-Reply-To: <54C63560020000780005967F@mail.emea.novell.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.xen.org/cgi-bin/mailman/options/xen-devel>,
	<mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xen.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:xen-devel@lists.xen.org>
List-Help: <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xen.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.xen.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>,
	<mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xen.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org
Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org
To: Jan Beulich <JBeulich@suse.com>, Boris Ostrovsky <boris.ostrovsky@oracle.com>
Cc: xen-devel <xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org>
List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org

On 26/01/15 11:38, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>>> On 26.01.15 at 12:04, <JBeulich@suse.com> wrote:
>>>>> On 24.01.15 at 13:54, <Ian.Jackson@eu.citrix.com> wrote:
>>>  test-amd64-amd64-xl-qemut-win7-amd64  7 windows-install   fail REGR. vs. 33637
>> Jan 24 00:35:16.262627 (XEN) ----[ Xen-4.6-unstable  x86_64  debug=y  Not tainted ]----
>> Jan 24 00:35:16.478599 (XEN) CPU:    1
>> Jan 24 00:35:16.478624 (XEN) RIP:    e008:[<0000000000000000>] 0000000000000000
>> Jan 24 00:35:16.486596 (XEN) RFLAGS: 0000000000010082   CONTEXT: hypervisor
>> ...
>> Jan 24 00:35:16.678620 (XEN) Xen call trace:
>> Jan 24 00:35:16.678650 (XEN)    [<ffff82d0801d36d0>] vpmu_do_interrupt+0x2f/0x8a
>> Jan 24 00:35:16.686605 (XEN)    [<ffff82d08015e242>] pmu_apic_interrupt+0x33/0x35
>> Jan 24 00:35:16.698582 (XEN)    [<ffff82d080171bf0>] do_IRQ+0x9c/0x624
>> Jan 24 00:35:16.698615 (XEN)    [<ffff82d080234062>] common_interrupt+0x62/0x70
>> Jan 24 00:35:16.698653 (XEN)    [<ffff82d08012c6fe>] _spin_unlock_irq+0x30/0x31
>> Jan 24 00:35:16.706604 (XEN)    [<ffff82d08012bcf1>] __do_softirq+0x81/0x8c
>> Jan 24 00:35:16.706638 (XEN)    [<ffff82d08012bd49>] do_softirq+0x13/0x15
>> Jan 24 00:35:16.718591 (XEN)    [<ffff82d0801ec4da>] vmx_asm_do_vmentry+0x2a/0x50
> I think I see what the problem here is: Commit 8097616fbd
> ("x86/VPMU: handle APIC_LVTPC accesses") gives the guest
> control over LVTPC.mask regardless of whether the vPMU was
> actually initialized for it. Supposedly in the case above the
> guest is being run with core2_no_vpmu_ops, which in
> particular has .do_interrupt == NULL. It's not immediately
> clear whether vpmu_lvtpc_update() should do the check or its
> (sole) caller. In any event I'm going to revert that commit as
> the primary suspect for causing the regression.

I have just fallen over this as well.  I second a revert in the absence
of a clear way to fix the patch.

~Andrew