Waba wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 14, 2007 at 03:20:18PM +0200, Avi Kivity wrote:
>
>> Well, there's probably an emulator bug somewhere.
>>
>> Can you add a printk() to set_cr4() in kvm_main.c and see what the guest
>> does? The documentation states that it's up to the OS to enable the
>> bit, so I c
On Wed, Feb 14, 2007 at 03:20:18PM +0200, Avi Kivity wrote:
> Well, there's probably an emulator bug somewhere.
>
> Can you add a printk() to set_cr4() in kvm_main.c and see what the guest
> does? The documentation states that it's up to the OS to enable the
> bit, so I can't just apply the pre
Waba wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 13, 2007 at 04:37:19PM +0200, Avi Kivity wrote:
>
>> bit 9 of cr4 (osfxsr) is clear, which according to the docs generates
>> #ud on any sse instruction.
>>
>
> I still have no idea why this bit was not set when running on my CPU,
> but with the register set up th
On Tue, Feb 13, 2007 at 04:37:19PM +0200, Avi Kivity wrote:
> bit 9 of cr4 (osfxsr) is clear, which according to the docs generates
> #ud on any sse instruction.
I still have no idea why this bit was not set when running on my CPU,
but with the register set up this way, no more SIGILL. I re-enabl
Waba wrote:
On Mon, Feb 12, 2007 at 11:48:49AM +0200, Avi Kivity wrote:
Let's look at the control registers at the time of the SIGILL. Can you
reproduce the error with the attached patch and send dmesg?
#ud: cr0 8005002b (8005003b) cr4 b8 (b8)
Qemu also aborted with "unhandled vm exi
On Mon, Feb 12, 2007 at 11:48:49AM +0200, Avi Kivity wrote:
> Let's look at the control registers at the time of the SIGILL. Can you
> reproduce the error with the attached patch and send dmesg?
#ud: cr0 8005002b (8005003b) cr4 b8 (b8)
Qemu also aborted with "unhandled vm exit: 08" or similar,
On Sat, Feb 10, 2007 at 02:34:43PM +0100, Waba wrote:
> It took me a while, but I figured it out... nearly!
Great. We get closer to the real problem.
> Further investigating, I tricked ls(1) into using the optimised libc
> through LD_LIBRARY_PATH and obtained a core. mdb(1) told me that the
> cul
>Avi Kivity <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Waba wrote:
>>> It took me a while, but I figured it out... nearly!
>>>
>>> Everything SIGILLs after the fs- root service is started. Its start
>>> method does several things, but the problematic bit is replacing the
>>> libc with an optimised version (name
>>> On Mon, Feb 12, 2007 at 4:48 AM, in message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Avi Kivity <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Waba wrote:
>> It took me a while, but I figured it out... nearly!
>>
>> Everything SIGILLs after the fs- root service is started. Its start
>> method does several things, but the problema
Waba wrote:
It took me a while, but I figured it out... nearly!
Everything SIGILLs after the fs-root service is started. Its start
method does several things, but the problematic bit is replacing the
libc with an optimised version (namely, /usr/lib/libc/libc_hwcap1.so.1,
which makes use of the S
Waba wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 11, 2007 at 11:14:58AM +0200, Avi Kivity wrote:
>
>> Can you post the host's /proc/cpuinfo? I'll compare it with my opteron.
>>
>
> flags : fpu vme de pse tsc msr pae mce cx8 apic sep mtrr pge
> mca cmov pat pse36 clflush mmx fxsr sse sse2 ht syscall nx mmx
On Sun, Feb 11, 2007 at 11:14:58AM +0200, Avi Kivity wrote:
> Can you post the host's /proc/cpuinfo? I'll compare it with my opteron.
processor : 0-1
vendor_id : AuthenticAMD
cpu family : 15
model : 75
model name : AMD Athlon(tm) 64 X2 Dual Core Processor 4600+
step
Waba wrote:
> It took me a while, but I figured it out... nearly!
>
> Everything SIGILLs after the fs-root service is started. Its start
> method does several things, but the problematic bit is replacing the
> libc with an optimised version (namely, /usr/lib/libc/libc_hwcap1.so.1,
> which makes use
It took me a while, but I figured it out... nearly!
Everything SIGILLs after the fs-root service is started. Its start
method does several things, but the problematic bit is replacing the
libc with an optimised version (namely, /usr/lib/libc/libc_hwcap1.so.1,
which makes use of the SSE, MMX, CMOV,
On 2/8/07, Joerg Roedel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 08, 2007 at 02:21:55PM +0200, Avi Kivity wrote:
> > Cyril Plisko wrote:
> > >>
> > >>Can this be sysenter support? i.e. is sysenter supported on opteron but
> > >>not on athlon x2?
> > >
> > >
> > >AFAIK, on both Opteron an Athlon X2
On Thu, Feb 08, 2007 at 02:21:55PM +0200, Avi Kivity wrote:
> Cyril Plisko wrote:
> >>
> >>Can this be sysenter support? i.e. is sysenter supported on opteron but
> >>not on athlon x2?
> >
> >
> >AFAIK, on both Opteron an Athlon X2 Solaris uses syscall, rather than
> >sysenter.
> >The catch here i
On 2/8/07, Avi Kivity <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Cyril Plisko wrote:
> >>
> >> Can this be sysenter support? i.e. is sysenter supported on opteron but
> >> not on athlon x2?
> >
> >
> > AFAIK, on both Opteron an Athlon X2 Solaris uses syscall, rather than
> > sysenter.
> > The catch here is that
Cyril Plisko wrote:
>>
>> Can this be sysenter support? i.e. is sysenter supported on opteron but
>> not on athlon x2?
>
>
> AFAIK, on both Opteron an Athlon X2 Solaris uses syscall, rather than
> sysenter.
> The catch here is that it starts with the least optimized libc at
> boot, and at some
> p
On 2/8/07, Avi Kivity <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Joerg Roedel wrote:
> > On Thu, Feb 08, 2007 at 12:04:54PM +0200, Avi Kivity wrote:
> >
> >> Joerg Roedel wrote:
> >>
> >>> On Thu, Feb 08, 2007 at 11:27:07AM +0200, Avi Kivity wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> Waba wrote:
>
>
> > On Wed, Feb
Joerg Roedel wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 08, 2007 at 12:04:54PM +0200, Avi Kivity wrote:
>
>> Joerg Roedel wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, Feb 08, 2007 at 11:27:07AM +0200, Avi Kivity wrote:
>>>
>>>
Waba wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 07, 2007 at 11:42:01AM +0200, Avi Kivity w
On Thu, Feb 08, 2007 at 12:04:54PM +0200, Avi Kivity wrote:
> Joerg Roedel wrote:
> >On Thu, Feb 08, 2007 at 11:27:07AM +0200, Avi Kivity wrote:
> >
> >>Waba wrote:
> >>
> >>>On Wed, Feb 07, 2007 at 11:42:01AM +0200, Avi Kivity wrote:
> >>>
> ok. please keep the patch applied, an
Joerg Roedel wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 08, 2007 at 11:27:07AM +0200, Avi Kivity wrote:
>
>> Waba wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, Feb 07, 2007 at 11:42:01AM +0200, Avi Kivity wrote:
>>>
>>>
ok. please keep the patch applied, and an addition:
- change '#undef AUDIT' to '#define AUD
On Thu, Feb 08, 2007 at 11:27:07AM +0200, Avi Kivity wrote:
> Waba wrote:
> > On Wed, Feb 07, 2007 at 11:42:01AM +0200, Avi Kivity wrote:
> >
> >> ok. please keep the patch applied, and an addition:
> >>
> >> - change '#undef AUDIT' to '#define AUDIT' in mmu.c
> >> - in the same file, change 's
Waba wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 07, 2007 at 11:42:01AM +0200, Avi Kivity wrote:
>
>> ok. please keep the patch applied, and an addition:
>>
>> - change '#undef AUDIT' to '#define AUDIT' in mmu.c
>> - in the same file, change 'static int dbg = 1;' to 'static int dbg = 0;'
>> - 'echo 9 > /proc/sysrq-tr
On Wed, Feb 07, 2007 at 11:42:01AM +0200, Avi Kivity wrote:
> ok. please keep the patch applied, and an addition:
>
> - change '#undef AUDIT' to '#define AUDIT' in mmu.c
> - in the same file, change 'static int dbg = 1;' to 'static int dbg = 0;'
> - 'echo 9 > /proc/sysrq-trigger'
>
> and run aga
Waba wrote:
>> Waba, can you apply the attached patch and post dmesg after the error
>> occurs? (it also has a small fix which may help).
>>
>
> No luck with the fix, it stills SIGILLs :( Here is the dmesg:
>
> [ 4800.373717] cr0_wp: 1 (before)
> [ 4808.442199] kvm: emulating exchange as wri
> Waba, can you apply the attached patch and post dmesg after the error
> occurs? (it also has a small fix which may help).
No luck with the fix, it stills SIGILLs :( Here is the dmesg:
[ 4800.373717] cr0_wp: 1 (before)
[ 4808.442199] kvm: emulating exchange as write
Thanks a lot for your help
Joerg Roedel wrote:
On Thu, Feb 01, 2007 at 10:49:24PM +0100, Waba wrote:
On Mon, Jan 29, 2007 at 01:49:06PM +0200, Avi Kivity wrote:
The attached patch should fix it.
Update for those who wouldn't have followed IRC meanwhile: this patch
does fix the bug for Opteron-based system
On Thu, Feb 01, 2007 at 10:49:24PM +0100, Waba wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 29, 2007 at 01:49:06PM +0200, Avi Kivity wrote:
> > The attached patch should fix it.
>
> Update for those who wouldn't have followed IRC meanwhile: this patch
> does fix the bug for Opteron-based systems, but doesn't improve anyt
On Mon, Jan 29, 2007 at 01:49:06PM +0200, Avi Kivity wrote:
> The attached patch should fix it.
Update for those who wouldn't have followed IRC meanwhile: this patch
does fix the bug for Opteron-based systems, but doesn't improve anything
on my X2 4600+. Avi therefore suggests that someone (_joro?
Waba wrote:
Hello,
I tried to install Solaris 10 under KVM, without success, so Avi told me
to post the details here. My CPU is an AMD X2, and I am using KVM trunk
on a 2.6.19.2, started with the following command-line:
kvm -hda solaris.qcow -cdrom sol-10-u3-ga-x86-dvd.iso -boot d -m 512 -no-
Avi Kivity wrote:
> Waba wrote:
>> On Sun, Jan 28, 2007 at 09:27:26PM +0200, Avi Kivity wrote:
>>
>>> The qemu BIOS complains that it can't boot from the CDROM
>>> (sol-10-u3-ga-x86-v1.iso). This happens with and without kvm. Do I
>>> need some other image?
>>>
>>> 'file' says:
>>> /data/imag
Waba wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 28, 2007 at 09:27:26PM +0200, Avi Kivity wrote:
>
>> The qemu BIOS complains that it can't boot from the CDROM
>> (sol-10-u3-ga-x86-v1.iso). This happens with and without kvm. Do I
>> need some other image?
>>
>> 'file' says:
>> /data/images/solaris/sol-10-u3-ga-x86
On Sun, Jan 28, 2007 at 09:27:26PM +0200, Avi Kivity wrote:
> The qemu BIOS complains that it can't boot from the CDROM
> (sol-10-u3-ga-x86-v1.iso). This happens with and without kvm. Do I
> need some other image?
>
> 'file' says:
> /data/images/solaris/sol-10-u3-ga-x86-v1.iso: ISO 9660 CD-ROM
Avi Kivity wrote:
> Waba wrote:
>> Now, how to reproduce my setup:
>> - Browse http://www.sun.com/software/solaris/get.jsp
>> - Click "Download Solaris 10"
>> - If asked for a user/pass, use bugmenot0/bugmenot (or make your own
>> account)
>> - Select the medium at the top of the page. You can re
Waba wrote:
> Now, how to reproduce my setup:
> - Browse http://www.sun.com/software/solaris/get.jsp
> - Click "Download Solaris 10"
> - If asked for a user/pass, use bugmenot0/bugmenot (or make your own
> account)
> - Select the medium at the top of the page. You can reproduce this bug
> using
On Sun, Jan 28, 2007 at 06:38:20PM +0100, Michael Riepe wrote:
> -no-acpi should not be necessary for Solaris/x86.
Ok.
> I've seen SIGILLs on AMD (Opteron 8218) as well. It worked on an Intel
> CPU, however.
>
> Is your host running in 32 or 64 bit mode? I used 64 bit mode (host OS
> was SLES 10)
Hi!
Waba wrote:
> I tried to install Solaris 10 under KVM, without success, so Avi told me
> to post the details here. My CPU is an AMD X2, and I am using KVM trunk
> on a 2.6.19.2, started with the following command-line:
>
> kvm -hda solaris.qcow -cdrom sol-10-u3-ga-x86-dvd.iso -boot d -m 51
Hello,
I tried to install Solaris 10 under KVM, without success, so Avi told me
to post the details here. My CPU is an AMD X2, and I am using KVM trunk
on a 2.6.19.2, started with the following command-line:
kvm -hda solaris.qcow -cdrom sol-10-u3-ga-x86-dvd.iso -boot d -m 512 -no-acpi
(I tried
39 matches
Mail list logo
