[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20200721030319.GD20375@linux.intel.com>
Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2020 20:03:19 -0700
From: Sean Christopherson <sean.j.christopherson@...el.com>
To: Alex Williamson <alex.williamson@...hat.com>
Cc: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@...hat.com>,
Wanpeng Li <wanpengli@...cent.com>,
Jim Mattson <jmattson@...gle.com>,
Joerg Roedel <joro@...tes.org>, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Xiong Zhang <xiong.y.zhang@...el.com>,
Wayne Boyer <wayne.boyer@...el.com>,
Zhenyu Wang <zhenyuw@...ux.intel.com>,
Jun Nakajima <jun.nakajima@...el.com>,
Weijiang Yang <weijiang.yang@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] KVM: x86/mmu: Add capability to zap only sptes for the
affected memslot
+Weijiang
On Mon, Jul 13, 2020 at 12:06:50PM -0700, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> The only ideas I have going forward are to:
>
> a) Reproduce the bug outside of your environment and find a resource that
> can go through the painful bisection.
We're trying to reproduce the original issue in the hopes of biesecting, but
have not yet discovered the secret sauce. A few questions:
- Are there any known hardware requirements, e.g. specific flavor of GPU?
- What's the average time to failure when running FurMark/PassMark? E.g.
what's a reasonable time to wait before rebooting to rerun the tests (I
assume this is what you meant when you said you sometimes needed to
reboot to observe failure).
Thanks!
Powered by blists - more mailing lists