From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=48819 helo=eggs.gnu.org)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1P3WgF-0004ux-RN
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 06 Oct 2010 12:17:24 -0400
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <mtosatti@redhat.com>) id 1P3WgE-00073W-ML
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 06 Oct 2010 12:17:23 -0400
Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:38839)
	by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <mtosatti@redhat.com>) id 1P3WgE-00073M-Cz
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 06 Oct 2010 12:17:22 -0400
Date: Wed, 6 Oct 2010 13:05:31 -0300
From: Marcelo Tosatti <mtosatti@redhat.com>
Message-ID: <20101006160531.GB4277@amt.cnet>
References: <20101004185447.891324545@redhat.com>
	<20101004185715.167557459@redhat.com>
	<4CABD7CC.6030909@jp.fujitsu.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <4CABD7CC.6030909@jp.fujitsu.com>
Subject: [Qemu-devel] Re: [patch uq/master 7/8] MCE: Relay UCR MCE to guest
List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel>
List-Post: <mailto:qemu-devel@nongnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=subscribe>
To: Hidetoshi Seto <seto.hidetoshi@jp.fujitsu.com>
Cc: Dean Nelson <dnelson@redhat.com>, qemu-devel@nongnu.org, kvm@vger.kernel.org, Huang Ying <ying.huang@intel.com>

On Wed, Oct 06, 2010 at 10:58:36AM +0900, Hidetoshi Seto wrote:
> I got some more question:
> 
> (2010/10/05 3:54), Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
> > Index: qemu/target-i386/cpu.h
> > ===================================================================
> > --- qemu.orig/target-i386/cpu.h
> > +++ qemu/target-i386/cpu.h
> > @@ -250,16 +250,32 @@
> >  #define PG_ERROR_RSVD_MASK 0x08
> >  #define PG_ERROR_I_D_MASK  0x10
> >  
> > -#define MCG_CTL_P	(1UL<<8)   /* MCG_CAP register available */
> > +#define MCG_CTL_P	(1ULL<<8)   /* MCG_CAP register available */
> > +#define MCG_SER_P	(1ULL<<24) /* MCA recovery/new status bits */
> >  
> > -#define MCE_CAP_DEF	MCG_CTL_P
> > +#define MCE_CAP_DEF	(MCG_CTL_P|MCG_SER_P)
> >  #define MCE_BANKS_DEF	10
> >  
> 
> It seems that current kvm doesn't support SER_P, so injecting SRAO
> to guest will mean that guest receives VAL|UC|!PCC and RIPV event
> from virtual processor that doesn't have SER_P.

Dean also noted this. I don't think it was deliberate choice to not
expose SER_P. Huang?

> I think most OSes don't expect that it can receives MCE with !PCC
> on traditional x86 processor without SER_P.
> 
> Q1: Is it safe to expect that guests can handle such !PCC event?
> Q2: What is the expected behavior on the guest?
> Q3: What happen if guest reboots itself in response to the MCE?
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> H.Seto