From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:59379) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1YdIYb-00027v-Pf for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 01 Apr 2015 09:19:46 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1YdIYX-0003rh-UB for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 01 Apr 2015 09:19:45 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:39080) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1YdIYX-0003rO-MV for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 01 Apr 2015 09:19:41 -0400 Message-ID: <551BF064.9030506@redhat.com> Date: Wed, 01 Apr 2015 15:19:32 +0200 From: Paolo Bonzini MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20150330185634.GE13271@potion.brq.redhat.com> <20150331134512.GG13271@potion.brq.redhat.com> <20150331164539.GD14262@potion.brq.redhat.com> <20150401114923.GH13271@potion.brq.redhat.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] E5-2620v2 - emulation stop error List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Andrey Korolyov , =?UTF-8?B?UmFkaW0gS3LEjW3DocWZ?= Cc: "kvm@vger.kernel.org" , "qemu-devel@nongnu.org" , "Dr. David Alan Gilbert" , Bandan Das , Kevin O'Connor , Gerd Hoffmann On 01/04/2015 14:26, Andrey Korolyov wrote: > Yes, I disabled host watchdog during runtime. Indeed guest-induced NMI > would look different and they had no reasons to be fired at this stage > inside guest. I`d suspect a hypervisor hardware misbehavior there but > have a very little idea on how APICv behavior (which is completely > microcode-dependent and CPU-dependent but decoupled from peripheral > hardware) may vary at this point, I am using 1.20140913.1 ucode > version from debian if this can matter. Will send trace suggested by > Paolo in a next couple of hours. Also it would be awesome to ask > hardware folks from Intel who can prove or disprove my abovementioned > statement (as I was unable to catch the problem on 2603v2 so far, this > hypothesis has some chance to be real). Yes, the interaction with the NMI watchdog is unexpected and makes a processor erratum somewhat more likely. Paolo