From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Michael S. Tsirkin" Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 untested] kvm: better MWAIT emulation for guests Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2017 15:35:18 +0200 Message-ID: <20170322153431-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org> References: <20170321225116.GJ2231@HEDWIG.INI.CMU.EDU> <540BB5C2-CEAE-47D2-845B-2DDEF3CDC303@gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Cc: Gabriel Somlo , Radim =?utf-8?B?S3LEjW3DocWZ?= , LKML , Paolo Bonzini , Jonathan Corbet , Thomas Gleixner , Ingo Molnar , "H. Peter Anvin" , X86 ML , Joerg Roedel , KVM list , linux-doc@vger.kernel.org To: Nadav Amit Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <540BB5C2-CEAE-47D2-845B-2DDEF3CDC303@gmail.com> Sender: linux-doc-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: kvm.vger.kernel.org On Tue, Mar 21, 2017 at 05:02:25PM -0700, Nadav Amit wrote: > > > On Mar 21, 2017, at 3:51 PM, Gabriel Somlo wrote: > > > > And I get the exact same results on the MacBookAir4,2 (which exhibits > > no freezing or extreme sluggishness when running OS X 10.7 smp with > > Michael's KVM MWAIT-in-L1 patch)... > > Sorry for my confusion. I didn’t read the entire thread and thought that > the problem is spurious wake-ups. > > Since that is not the case, I would just suggest two things that you can > freely ignore: > > 1. According to the SDM, when an interrupt is delivered, the interrupt > is only delivered on the following instruction, so you may consider > skipping the MWAIT first. > > 2. Perhaps the CPU changes for some reason GUEST_ACTIVITY_STATE (which > is not according to the SDM). > > That is it. No more BS from me. > > Nadav Intersting. I found this errata: A REP STOS/MOVS to a MONITOR/MWAIT Address Range May Prevent Triggering of the Monitoring Hardware Could the macbook CPU be affected? -- MST