On Mon, Jan 27, 2020 at 11:24:31AM -0800, Jim Mattson wrote: > On Sun, Jan 26, 2020 at 8:36 PM Nadav Amit <nadav.amit@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > On Jan 26, 2020, at 2:06 PM, Jim Mattson <jmattson@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > If I had to guess, you probably have SMM malware on your host. Remove > > > the malware, and the test should pass. > > > > Well, malware will always be an option, but I doubt this is the case. > > Was my innuendo too subtle? I consider any code executing in SMM to be malware. SMI complications seem unlikely. The straw that broke the camel's back was a 1152 cyle delta, presumably the other failing runs had similar deltas. I've never benchmarked SMI+RSM, but I highly doubt it comes anywhere close to VM-Enter/VM-Exit's super optimized ~400 cycle round trip. E.g. I wouldn't be surprised if just SMI+RSM is over 1500 cycles. > > Interestingly, in the last few times the failure did not reproduce. Yet, > > thinking about it made me concerned about MTRRs configuration, and that > > perhaps performance is affected by memory marked as UC after boot, since > > kvm-unit-test does not reset MTRRs. > > > > Reading the variable range MTRRs, I do see some ranges marked as UC (most of > > the range 2GB-4GB, if I read the MTRRs correctly): > > > > MSR 0x200 = 0x80000000 > > MSR 0x201 = 0x3fff80000800 > > MSR 0x202 = 0xff000005 > > MSR 0x203 = 0x3fffff000800 > > MSR 0x204 = 0x38000000000 > > MSR 0x205 = 0x3f8000000800 > > > > Do you think we should set the MTRRs somehow in KVM-unit-tests? If yes, can > > you suggest a reasonable configuration? > > I would expect MTRR issues to result in repeatable failures. For > instance, if your VMCS ended up in UC memory, that might slow things > down quite a bit. But, I would expect the VMCS to end up at the same > address each time the test is run. Agreed on the repeatable failures part, but putting the VMCS in UC memory shouldn't affect this type of test. The CPU's internal VMCS cache isn't coherent, and IIRC isn't disabled if the MTRRs for the VMCS happen to be UC.
