From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Gleb Natapov <gleb@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5] KVM: nVMX: Fully support of nested VMX preemption
 timer
Date: Sun, 29 Sep 2013 14:30:51 +0300
Message-ID: <20130929113051.GT17294@redhat.com>
References: <1379319104-10266-1-git-send-email-yzt356@gmail.com>
 <52444CF6.1020102@redhat.com>
 <52446C8D.8030000@web.de>
 <52447335.9090601@redhat.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Cc: Jan Kiszka <jan.kiszka@web.de>,
	Arthur Chunqi Li <yzt356@gmail.com>, kvm@vger.kernel.org,
	"Zhang, Yang Z" <yang.z.zhang@intel.com>
To: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>
Return-path: <kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:46122 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com"
	rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
	id S1751223Ab3I2Lay (ORCPT <rfc822;kvm@vger.kernel.org>);
	Sun, 29 Sep 2013 07:30:54 -0400
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <52447335.9090601@redhat.com>
Sender: kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <kvm.vger.kernel.org>

On Thu, Sep 26, 2013 at 07:47:33PM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> 
> Il 26/09/2013 19:19, Jan Kiszka ha scritto:
> > On 2013-09-26 17:04, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> >> Il 16/09/2013 10:11, Arthur Chunqi Li ha scritto:
> >>> This patch contains the following two changes:
> >>> 1. Fix the bug in nested preemption timer support. If vmexit L2->L0
> >>> with some reasons not emulated by L1, preemption timer value should
> >>> be save in such exits.
> >>> 2. Add support of "Save VMX-preemption timer value" VM-Exit controls
> >>> to nVMX.
> >>>
> >>> With this patch, nested VMX preemption timer features are fully
> >>> supported.
> >>>
> >>> Signed-off-by: Arthur Chunqi Li <yzt356@gmail.com>
> >>> ---
> >>> ChangeLog to v4:
> >>> 	Format changes and remove a flag in nested_vmx.
> >>>  arch/x86/include/uapi/asm/msr-index.h |    1 +
> >>>  arch/x86/kvm/vmx.c                    |   44 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--
> >>>  2 files changed, 43 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> >>
> >> Hi all,
> >>
> >> the test fails for me if the preemption timer value is set to a value
> >> that is above ~2000 (which means ~65000 TSC cycles on this machine).
> >> The preemption timer seems to count faster than what is expected, for
> >> example only up to 4 million cycles if you set it to one million.
> >> So, I am leaving the patch out of kvm/queue for now, until I can
> >> test it on more processors.
> > 
> > So this behaviour is a regression of this patch (and your own version as
> > well)?
> 
> Without this patch Arthur's preemption timer test doesn't work at all.
> 
Have you ruled out test bugs?

I see things like:
+       int i, j;
...

+               // Consume enough time to let L2->L0->L2 occurs
+               for(i = 0; i < 100000; i++)
+                       for (j = 0; j < 10000; j++);

which can be optimized out. Or use of rdtsc() which can be problematic
if host tsc is not synchronised.


--
			Gleb.