Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751986AbdHGRuJ (ORCPT ); Mon, 7 Aug 2017 13:50:09 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:52872 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751799AbdHGRuH (ORCPT ); Mon, 7 Aug 2017 13:50:07 -0400 DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mx1.redhat.com 6E081C047B78 Authentication-Results: ext-mx07.extmail.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=redhat.com Authentication-Results: ext-mx07.extmail.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com; spf=fail smtp.mailfrom=pbonzini@redhat.com Subject: Re: kvm_intel fails to load on Conroe CPUs running Linux 4.12 To: Sebastian Rachuj , rkrcmar@redhat.com, tglx@linutronix.de, mingo@redhat.com, hpa@zytor.com, x86@kernel.org, kvm@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org References: <27ee7b1f-0390-fca2-4b9c-cfea715328e9@web.de> <596b1df7-7fec-4acf-f19a-67ed4e1ba150@redhat.com> From: Paolo Bonzini Message-ID: <6726cf9c-8eb5-8930-fca0-8f5867660847@redhat.com> Date: Mon, 7 Aug 2017 19:50:02 +0200 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.2.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.5.16 (mx1.redhat.com [10.5.110.31]); Mon, 07 Aug 2017 17:50:07 +0000 (UTC) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 987 Lines: 23 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. Paolo