From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Avi Kivity Subject: Re: KVM entry failed, hardware error Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2012 18:19:13 +0300 Message-ID: <4FD4BAF1.9050908@redhat.com> References: <4FCB55FE.2010808@gmx.de> <4FCB59A2.4020008@redhat.com> <4FCB6045.1050002@gmx.de> <4FCF7CE6.3050901@redhat.com> <4FCF9C78.3090406@gmx.de> <4FD05459.7020702@redhat.com> <4FD07C5D.3080001@gmx.de> <4FD0886C.2050304@redhat.com> <4FD0C02B.70103@redhat.com> <4FD0CB27.9040803@gmx.de> <4FD0E402.2060203@redhat.com> <4FD0FDA7.5060701@gmx.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: kvm@vger.kernel.org To: Johannes Bauer Return-path: Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:36166 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751561Ab2FJPTS (ORCPT ); Sun, 10 Jun 2012 11:19:18 -0400 In-Reply-To: <4FD0FDA7.5060701@gmx.de> Sender: kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On 06/07/2012 10:14 PM, Johannes Bauer wrote: > On 07.06.2012 19:25, Avi Kivity wrote: > >>> Note that "c" does NOT cause the VM to resume, only "info registers" >>> does. dmesg shows nothing out of the ordinary. >> >> I'm guessing this is 5152902652. Try bumping 'unsigned count = 130' (by >> adding zeros at the end, don't bother with anything less). If you >> increase it too much qemu may hang; but kill -9 should unfreeze it. > > Doesn't seem to be right -- still got the same problem. I first bumped > it up to 1300 and inserted debugging output to see how many cycles are > actually spent in the loop. It enters the emulation mode so frequently > (and leaves it again) that the dmesg buffer ran over (128kB). So I > changed the debugging to give me the lowest cycle count that it ever has > after the loop: > > handle_invalid_guest_state: emulation left, new low count 1295 > handle_invalid_guest_state: emulation left, new low count 1292 > handle_invalid_guest_state: emulation left, new low count 1291 > handle_invalid_guest_state: emulation left, new low count 1245 > > Which means that it spends a maximum of 55 cycles in the loop (well > below the original 130 even). So my change had no effect. Any other > ideas maybe? > Looks like we weren't dealing with interrupts correctly. I pushed some patches, please pull again and retry. -- error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function