From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:33638) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1VMich-0002nh-WA for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 19 Sep 2013 14:06:47 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1VMica-0006O6-Cm for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 19 Sep 2013 14:06:39 -0400 Received: from citadel.icyb.net.ua ([212.40.38.140]:3898) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1VMicZ-0006Ns-W2 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 19 Sep 2013 14:06:32 -0400 Message-ID: <523B3CD1.4070104@FreeBSD.org> Date: Thu, 19 Sep 2013 21:05:05 +0300 From: Andriy Gapon MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <52383EED.6080602@FreeBSD.org> <52384BF6.5030302@suse.de> <52386855.7080106@FreeBSD.org> <20130917184954.GA5657@redhat.com> <523B0BE0.90102@FreeBSD.org> <523B2C06.3060309@redhat.com> <523B31ED.9020504@FreeBSD.org> <523B33B1.3030100@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <523B33B1.3030100@redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] in_asm substitute for accel=kvm:tcg List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Paolo Bonzini Cc: =?UTF-8?B?QW5kcmVhcyBGw6RyYmVy?= , Gleb Natapov , qemu-devel@nongnu.org on 19/09/2013 20:26 Paolo Bonzini said the following: > I don't think that's what happens. It's more likely that for some > reason the emulator mis-parses the instruction. > > Please confirm with "info cpus" that QEMU is looping there (just in > case), and attach the output of "info registers" (you can use "-monitor > stdio" to do this and to answer question 2 from my previous email). (qemu) info registers EAX=00000010 EBX=00009335 ECX=00000000 EDX=00000000 ESI=000017fc EDI=000017c8 EBP=00045400 ESP=000017b8 EIP=00009315 EFL=00003002 [-------] CPL=3 II=0 A20=1 SMM=0 HLT=0 ES =0000 00000000 ffffffff 00c09300 CS =0000 00000000 0000ffff 0000f300 SS =0000 00000000 0000ffff 0000f300 DS =0000 00000000 ffffffff 00c09300 FS =0a00 0000a000 ffffffff 00c0f300 GS =0a00 0000a000 ffffffff 00c0f300 LDT=0000 00000000 0000ffff 00008200 TR =0038 00005f98 00002067 00008b00 GDT= 00009590 0000003f IDT= 00005e00 00000197 CR0=00000010 CR2=00000000 CR3=00000000 CR4=00000000 DR0=0000000000000000 DR1=0000000000000000 DR2=0000000000000000 DR3=0000000000000000 DR6=00000000ffff0ff0 DR7=0000000000000400 EFER=0000000000000000 FCW=037f FSW=0000 [ST=0] FTW=00 MXCSR=00001f80 FPR0=0000000000000000 0000 FPR1=0000000000000000 0000 FPR2=0000000000000000 0000 FPR3=0000000000000000 0000 FPR4=0000000000000000 0000 FPR5=0000000000000000 0000 FPR6=0000000000000000 0000 FPR7=0000000000000000 0000 XMM00=00000000000000000000000000000000 XMM01=00000000000000000000000000000000 XMM02=00000000000000000000000000000000 XMM03=00000000000000000000000000000000 XMM04=00000000000000000000000000000000 XMM05=00000000000000000000000000000000 XMM06=00000000000000000000000000000000 XMM07=00000000000000000000000000000000 (qemu) info cpus * CPU #0: pc=0x0000000000009315 thread_id=17463 But I can't 100% guarantee validity of these results. It seems that the first time I execute any monitor command it reports something consistently, but all subsequent invocations produce something different. So I restart the guest two times and each of the above commands was executes as the first command in monitor. -- Andriy Gapon