This patch modifies KVM to cause a guest exit with
KVM_EXIT_NMI instead of immediately delivering a 0x200
interrupt to guest upon machine check exception in
guest address. Exiting the guest enables QEMU to build
error log and deliver machine check exception to guest
OS (either via guest OS register
Aravinda Prasad writes:
> This patch modifies KVM to cause a guest exit with
> KVM_EXIT_NMI instead of immediately delivering a 0x200
> interrupt to guest upon machine check exception in
> guest address. Exiting the guest enables QEMU to build
> error log and deliver machine check exception to gu
On Wed, Nov 11, 2015 at 10:28:46PM +0530, Aravinda Prasad wrote:
> This patch modifies KVM to cause a guest exit with
> KVM_EXIT_NMI instead of immediately delivering a 0x200
> interrupt to guest upon machine check exception in
> guest address. Exiting the guest enables QEMU to build
> error log an
On Thu, Nov 12, 2015 at 01:24:19PM +1100, Daniel Axtens wrote:
> Aravinda Prasad writes:
>
> > This patch modifies KVM to cause a guest exit with
> > KVM_EXIT_NMI instead of immediately delivering a 0x200
> > interrupt to guest upon machine check exception in
> > guest address. Exiting the guest
On Thursday 12 November 2015 09:08 AM, David Gibson wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 12, 2015 at 01:24:19PM +1100, Daniel Axtens wrote:
>> Aravinda Prasad writes:
>>
>>> This patch modifies KVM to cause a guest exit with
>>> KVM_EXIT_NMI instead of immediately delivering a 0x200
>>> interrupt to guest upon
On Thu, Nov 12, 2015 at 10:02:10AM +0530, Aravinda Prasad wrote:
>
>
> On Thursday 12 November 2015 09:08 AM, David Gibson wrote:
> > On Thu, Nov 12, 2015 at 01:24:19PM +1100, Daniel Axtens wrote:
> >> Aravinda Prasad writes:
> >>
> >>> This patch modifies KVM to cause a guest exit with
> >>> KV
> So, IIUC. Once the qemu pieces are in place as well it shouldn't
> change this behaviour: KVM will exit to qemu, qemu will log the error
> information (new), then reinject the MC to the guest which can still
> handle it as you describe above.
Ah, that makes *much* more sense now! Thanks for th
On Thursday 12 November 2015 09:04 AM, David Gibson wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 11, 2015 at 10:28:46PM +0530, Aravinda Prasad wrote:
>> This patch modifies KVM to cause a guest exit with
>> KVM_EXIT_NMI instead of immediately delivering a 0x200
>> interrupt to guest upon machine check exception in
>> gu
On Thursday 12 November 2015 10:28 AM, Daniel Axtens wrote:
>
>> So, IIUC. Once the qemu pieces are in place as well it shouldn't
>> change this behaviour: KVM will exit to qemu, qemu will log the error
>> information (new), then reinject the MC to the guest which can still
>> handle it as you
On Thursday 12 November 2015 10:13 AM, David Gibson wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 12, 2015 at 10:02:10AM +0530, Aravinda Prasad wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Thursday 12 November 2015 09:08 AM, David Gibson wrote:
>>> On Thu, Nov 12, 2015 at 01:24:19PM +1100, Daniel Axtens wrote:
Aravinda Prasad writes:
>
Aravinda Prasad writes:
>> Yeah, it would be good not to break this.
>
> I am not familiar with CAPI. Does this affect CAPI?
When a CAPI card experiences an EEH event, any cache lines it holds are
filled with SUEs (Special UEs, interpreted by the kernel the same as
regular UEs). When these are r
On Thu, Nov 12, 2015 at 11:22:29PM +0530, Aravinda Prasad wrote:
>
>
> On Thursday 12 November 2015 10:13 AM, David Gibson wrote:
> > On Thu, Nov 12, 2015 at 10:02:10AM +0530, Aravinda Prasad wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> On Thursday 12 November 2015 09:08 AM, David Gibson wrote:
> >>> On Thu, Nov 12, 20
On Friday 13 November 2015 03:07 AM, Daniel Axtens wrote:
> Aravinda Prasad writes:
>
>>> Yeah, it would be good not to break this.
>>
>> I am not familiar with CAPI. Does this affect CAPI?
>
> When a CAPI card experiences an EEH event, any cache lines it holds are
> filled with SUEs (Special
On Friday 13 November 2015 07:20 AM, David Gibson wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 12, 2015 at 11:22:29PM +0530, Aravinda Prasad wrote:
[...]
>>
>> I overlooked it. I think I need to take into consideration whether guest
>> issued "ibm, nmi-register". If the guest has issued "ibm, nmi-register"
>> then we
On 13/11/15 07:26, Aravinda Prasad wrote:
>
> On Friday 13 November 2015 07:20 AM, David Gibson wrote:
>> On Thu, Nov 12, 2015 at 11:22:29PM +0530, Aravinda Prasad wrote:
[...]
>>> So thinking whether qemu should explicitly enable the new NMI
>>> behavior.
>>
>> So, I think the reasoning above ten
On Friday 13 November 2015 01:08 PM, Thomas Huth wrote:
> On 13/11/15 07:26, Aravinda Prasad wrote:
>>
>> On Friday 13 November 2015 07:20 AM, David Gibson wrote:
>>> On Thu, Nov 12, 2015 at 11:22:29PM +0530, Aravinda Prasad wrote:
> [...]
So thinking whether qemu should explicitly enable th
16 matches
Mail list logo
