Oops, those patches don't apply cleanly to the mainline. Here's the updated patches.
I tested these three patches on Intel (3.13.0-106-generic #153-Ubuntu SMP Tue Dec 6 15:44:32 UTC 2016 x86_64 x86_64 x86_64 GNU/Linux) and AMD (4.0.0-040050-generic #201505271752 SMP Wed May 27 17:53:58 IDT 2015 x86_64 x86_64 x86_64 GNU/Linux). Linux boot works for both. I can provide the auxilary files I used (config scripts / kernel / disk images) if needed. Cheers, Jason On Fri, Feb 3, 2017 at 12:58 PM Jason Lowe-Power <ja...@lowepower.com> wrote: > Here's the three patches I've been using. I've done most of my testing on > an Intel platform, BTW. I have an AMD platform, though it's been a long > time since I've tested gem5-KVM on it. If I get some extra time today, I'll > run a quick test. > > Cheers, > Jason > > On Fri, Feb 3, 2017 at 12:10 PM Gabe Black <gabebl...@google.com> wrote: > > ping... > > On Thu, Feb 2, 2017 at 12:11 PM, Gabe Black <gabebl...@google.com> wrote: > > Any chance somebody can send me a patch? > > Gabe > > > On Tue, Jan 31, 2017 at 2:34 PM, Gabe Black <gabebl...@google.com> wrote: > > I have no plans to attend HPCA at the moment. > > There are folks here who are using my original version of this patch and > would like to check it into our internal version of gem5, but I think we > should use a version of it that doesn't break anything else in the process. > Unfortunately I don't have an SVM capable machine around to test on so I > can't vet things myself, but if you guys have a patch you're confident > doesn't break either Intel or AMD KVM I can pass that along. Please let me > know if there's anything I can do to help. > > Gabe > > On Tue, Jan 31, 2017 at 8:05 AM, Jason Lowe-Power <ja...@lowepower.com> > wrote: > > > > > On Jan. 30, 2017, 10:31 p.m., Gabe Black wrote: > > > Hi folks. I put together this patch a long time ago, there was some > discussion about it, and then I lost track of what was going on with it. > Have the issues it causes with AMD cpus been tracked down? Glancing through > this again, I think there are a couple things which are genuinely wrong > which should fix things regardless of the underlying CPU (like reversed > bits, things that shouldn't be set but are), but I wouldn't want to push it > if it would break some other things which are currently working. Please > update me on the current state of things. > > > > mike upton wrote: > > I developed another patch on top that had both AMD and intel > working. I cant remember the number, and it should certainly be retested > before merging. > > I will need to see if I can fins a current AMD box. > > > > So the answer to your question is: yes there were issues, the issues > were tracked down and there is a additional patch that gets both intel and > AMD SE virtualization working. The code has not been tested in 2 years > though. > > I've been using some version of these patches in my local repository for a > while now. I think I may have some patches on top of these to fix other > issues, too. > > I've added this as a possible project for a Sprint this Sunday ( > http://gem5.org/Sprint_Ideas#Push_in_fixes_to_x86_KVM). Any chance you're > going to be at HPCA, and want to work on this, Mike or Gabe? > > > - Jason > > > ----------------------------------------------------------- > This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: > http://reviews.gem5.org/r/2557/#review9350 > ----------------------------------------------------------- > > > On Dec. 10, 2014, 10:11 a.m., Gabe Black wrote: > > > > ----------------------------------------------------------- > > This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: > > http://reviews.gem5.org/r/2557/ > > ----------------------------------------------------------- > > > > (Updated Dec. 10, 2014, 10:11 a.m.) > > > > > > Review request for Default. > > > > > > Repository: gem5 > > > > > > Description > > ------- > > > > Changeset 10606:aa3eb7453246 > > --------------------------- > > x86: kvm: Fix the KVM CPU in SE and FS on Intel CPUs. > > > > There were a number of problems with how things were initialized which > prevent > > VMX from running the simulation as a guest. > > > > > > Diffs > > ----- > > > > src/arch/x86/process.cc 8fc6e7a835d1d313e139c9095251105f904ac1b4 > > src/arch/x86/regs/misc.hh 8fc6e7a835d1d313e139c9095251105f904ac1b4 > > src/arch/x86/system.hh 8fc6e7a835d1d313e139c9095251105f904ac1b4 > > src/arch/x86/system.cc 8fc6e7a835d1d313e139c9095251105f904ac1b4 > > src/arch/x86/utility.hh 8fc6e7a835d1d313e139c9095251105f904ac1b4 > > src/arch/x86/utility.cc 8fc6e7a835d1d313e139c9095251105f904ac1b4 > > src/cpu/kvm/x86_cpu.cc 8fc6e7a835d1d313e139c9095251105f904ac1b4 > > > > Diff: http://reviews.gem5.org/r/2557/diff/ > > > > > > Testing > > ------- > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > Gabe Black > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > gem5-dev mailing list > gem5-dev@gem5.org > http://m5sim.org/mailman/listinfo/gem5-dev > > > > > _______________________________________________ gem5-dev mailing list gem5-dev@gem5.org http://m5sim.org/mailman/listinfo/gem5-dev
