Hi John, On Fri, Dec 13, 2013 at 2:09 PM, John Baldwin <j...@freebsd.org> wrote: > On Thursday, December 12, 2013 4:00:08 pm Neel Natu wrote: >> Hi John, >> >> On Thu, Dec 12, 2013 at 12:11 PM, John Baldwin <j...@freebsd.org> wrote: >> > If I suspend and resume my laptop and then try to start a guest after the >> > resume, I get an odd panic. It generates a privileged instruction fault >> > (in >> > kernel mode) for 'vmclear'. I've checked CR4 and it claims that VMXE is >> > set. >> > I dont have any other ideas off the top of my head on what I should be >> > poking >> > at? It looks like we read a bunch of MSRs in vmx_init(), but we don't >> > write >> > to them, and all vmx_enable() does on each CPU is set VMXE in CR4 from >> > what I >> > can tell. >> > >> >> It also does a "vmxon" on each logical cpu which may also need to be >> done after a resume. > > Ah, yes it does. That was sufficient both for starting a new guest after > resume and even doing a suspend/resume while a guest was active (and the > guest continued to run fine). I have a hacky patch for this. One, it > includes both a suspend and resume hook for VMM, though for my testing I only > needed a resume hook to invoke vmxon. Second, the name of vmx_resume2() > is a total hack (because vmx_resume() was already taken. I think for now > if I were to commit this, I'd just add the resme hook and maybe call the > Intel method vmx_reset() or vmx_restore()? > > http://people.freebsd.org/~jhb/patches/bhyve_resume.patch >
There seems to be a race after the APs are restarted and before 'vmm_resume_p()' where it would be problematic to execute a VMX instruction. Perhaps we should enable VMX on each cpu before they return to the interrupted code? best Neel > -- > John Baldwin _______________________________________________ freebsd-virtualization@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-virtualization To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-virtualization-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
