From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: christoffer.dall@linaro.org (Christoffer Dall)
Date: Thu, 12 Sep 2013 08:27:16 -0700
Subject: KVM virtual timer issue with trinity
In-Reply-To: <20130912093750.GE15357@mudshark.cambridge.arm.com>
References: <20130906163052.GG30450@mudshark.cambridge.arm.com>
 <20130912093750.GE15357@mudshark.cambridge.arm.com>
Message-ID: <20130912152716.GP9860@cbox>
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org

On Thu, Sep 12, 2013 at 10:37:50AM +0100, Will Deacon wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 06, 2013 at 05:30:52PM +0100, Will Deacon wrote:
> > Running trinity as a normal user in a KVM guest on my TC2 (A15s only)
> > eventually leads to a situation where responsiveness is extremely sluggish.
> > Further investigation shows that issuing a `sleep 1' command never returns.
> > This seems to be because the virtual timer has stopped generating interrupts
> > on CPU0 (CPU1 seems ok).
> > 
> > Dumping the timer state (see below), it looks like CPU0's timer expired in
> > the past, but we're perhaps not receiving the interrupt. The trinity logs
> > don't reveal anything obvious (and they're huge, so I can't include them
> > here).
> > 
> > I can reproduce this in an hour or so, so if you want me to try anything out
> > in the host, I can give it a go. I'm using 3.11 as both the guest and host.
> 
> Any ideas on things I can do to get to the bottom of this? It's preventing
> me from running trinity to find any other issues and there's no reason you
> couldn't hit this lockup under other workloads.
> 
I've been thinking on this, sorry about the late response.

I see something similar when resuming a suspended guest, but I don't
have very clever ideas or debug strategies yet.  I plan on looking at
this once I get a new revision of the save/restore QEMU patches out.

-Christoffer