On 07.08.2017 19:50, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
On 07/08/2017 19:17, Sebastian Rachuj wrote:
Thank you for looking into the issue. My cpuinfo is as follows:
Looks like Intel was already differentiating virtualization features
across SKUs. Please run the attached script as root to see what other
things are different (apparently) between non-Xeon and Xeon Conroes.
Here you are, I hope it helps:
Not much to say, unfortunately. It's pretty much the same capabilities
as a Prescott/Cedar Mill processor, except that it has MSR bitmaps. It
also lacks FlexPriority compared to the Conroe I had checked.
It's not great that even the revert patch doesn't apply cleanly---this
is *not* necessarily a boring area of the hypervisor...
Given the rarity of your machine I'm currently leaning towards _not_
reverting the change. I'll check another non-Xeon Core 2 tomorrow that
is from December 2008 (IIRC). If that one also lacks vNMI, or if I get
other reports, I suppose I will have to reconsider that.
That's unfortunate to hear. Just for completeness, I want to mention a
thread in the Archlinux forum, I created, where two other people (Sadar
and losko) also complained about not working KVM [1]. Additionally,
Linux 4.12 has not reached yet reached distributions with a greater
amount of users.
If supporting these chips is too much of a hassle, I will probably have
to buy a new CPU to enjoy KVM support with a current linux kernel.
Anyway, thanks again for figuring this out!
[1]: https://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?id=228645
