From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.1 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIMWL_WL_HIGH, DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 09D0FC433E4 for ; Tue, 21 Jul 2020 16:00:51 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DD6D920720 for ; Tue, 21 Jul 2020 16:00:50 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=redhat.com header.i=@redhat.com header.b="WOsQR8Ca" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1729977AbgGUQAu (ORCPT ); Tue, 21 Jul 2020 12:00:50 -0400 Received: from us-smtp-1.mimecast.com ([205.139.110.61]:43986 "EHLO us-smtp-delivery-1.mimecast.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726892AbgGUQAs (ORCPT ); Tue, 21 Jul 2020 12:00:48 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1595347247; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=eeKT2rOIxGNaO2zvUjaNxphvmuUrFZ8hkCC7PUINRIc=; b=WOsQR8CaobV9EcBs11d4mfXIL0XV22n7jk5ZnhgAqpGF8PW76sHsVUWWlSJdq+8CVn4308 vRPwERVkJV0BfNztLWgVy9NcpyjGeV0cNn+ACO/LUqVPtz9BVRTCZU6guJib8eL/9peU0S SqZfc8A/bY3hxB4uu9VcooTL9l6/0HA= Received: from mimecast-mx01.redhat.com (mimecast-mx01.redhat.com [209.132.183.4]) (Using TLS) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP id us-mta-268-xqQdX3AQN2uqd872ket1QQ-1; Tue, 21 Jul 2020 12:00:42 -0400 X-MC-Unique: xqQdX3AQN2uqd872ket1QQ-1 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx01.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.11]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mimecast-mx01.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A00E780BCCC; Tue, 21 Jul 2020 16:00:40 +0000 (UTC) Received: from w520.home (ovpn-112-71.phx2.redhat.com [10.3.112.71]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0ECD76FECD; Tue, 21 Jul 2020 16:00:36 +0000 (UTC) Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2020 10:00:36 -0600 From: Alex Williamson To: Sean Christopherson Cc: Paolo Bonzini , Vitaly Kuznetsov , Wanpeng Li , Jim Mattson , Joerg Roedel , kvm@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Xiong Zhang , Wayne Boyer , Zhenyu Wang , Jun Nakajima , Weijiang Yang Subject: Re: [PATCH] KVM: x86/mmu: Add capability to zap only sptes for the affected memslot Message-ID: <20200721100036.464d4440@w520.home> In-Reply-To: <20200721030319.GD20375@linux.intel.com> References: <20200703025047.13987-1-sean.j.christopherson@intel.com> <51637a13-f23b-8b76-c93a-76346b4cc982@redhat.com> <20200709211253.GW24919@linux.intel.com> <49c7907a-3ab4-b5db-ccb4-190b990c8be3@redhat.com> <20200710042922.GA24919@linux.intel.com> <20200713122226.28188f93@x1.home> <20200713190649.GE29725@linux.intel.com> <20200721030319.GD20375@linux.intel.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.79 on 10.5.11.11 Sender: kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: kvm@vger.kernel.org On Mon, 20 Jul 2020 20:03:19 -0700 Sean Christopherson wrote: > +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? I'm using an old GeForce GT635, I don't think there's anything special about this card. > - 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). The failure mode ranges from graphics glitches, ex. vectors drawn across a window during the test or stray lines when interacting with the Windows menu button, to graphics driver failures triggering an error dialog, usually from PassMark. I usually start FurMark, run the stress test for ~10s, kill it, then run a PassMark benchmark. If I don't observe any glitching during the run, I'll trigger the Windows menu a few times, then reboot and try again. The graphics tests within PassMark are generally when the glitches are triggered, both 2D and 3D, sometimes it's sufficient to only run those tests rather than the full system benchmark. That's largely the trouble with this bisect is that the test is very interactive and requires observation. Sometimes when it fails it snowballs into worse and worse errors and there's high confidence that it's bad, but other times you'll be suspicious that something occurred and need to repeat the testing. Thanks, Alex