> From: Dave Voutila
> Date: Sun, 28 Nov 2021 22:51:59 -0500
>
> The last vmm diff I'll be sending tonight...promise! This swaps out
> usage of printf(9) outside the autoconf(4) functions.
>
> The reason for this change is printf(9) could acquire a sleepable
> lock.
Huh?
/*
* printf: print a
On Sun, Nov 28, 2021 at 10:32:47PM -0500, Dave Voutila wrote:
> Smallest of the VMX/VMCS stability diffs. This bumps the spinout to be
> the same number of ticks used by the mplock debug. This is needed on
> older/slower hosts.
>
> ok?
>
> -dv
>
> diff e8c587551f20ba6fdaa0f483ea768aade9f66f7d
>
The last vmm diff I'll be sending tonight...promise! This swaps out
usage of printf(9) outside the autoconf(4) functions.
The reason for this change is printf(9) could acquire a sleepable
lock. For VMX-based hosts, this can corrupt the active VMCS as the
scheduler may decide to migrate the
This diff removes instability from VMX-based hosts by either removing
the possibility of the process sleeping while the VMCS is active or
reloading it if we had no choice.
A mutex is added to help guard the VMCS state so testing with witness
has helped verify the diff.
The rwlock on the cpu
Smallest of the VMX/VMCS stability diffs. This bumps the spinout to be
the same number of ticks used by the mplock debug. This is needed on
older/slower hosts.
ok?
-dv
diff e8c587551f20ba6fdaa0f483ea768aade9f66f7d
981a8cfd4e1dfe412e9c72fb5b47e7e46813bfbb
blob -
This applies our normal strategies for making network drivers mpsafe, and
also writes to GMAC_TX_POLL_DEMAND once per call to dwge_start() rather than
once per packet, and returns rx slots once per interrupt rather than once
per packet.
I've tested this on a rockpro64, where it makes tcpbench
Dave Voutila writes:
> Greetings tech@,
>
> I'm looking for testers of the following diff which addresses spurious
> VMCS corruption on Intel VMX hosts. If since upgrading to 7.0 or
> following -current you've had guests die and errors about failure to
> vmresume, please try this diff. I've
On 2021-11-28 05:13 UTC, Klemens Nanni wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 18, 2021 at 09:02:00AM +0100, Florian Obser wrote:
>> This might be the crash kn@ was seeing once in a blue moon.
>
> I somewhat doubt it, since slaacd crashed on my notebook using trunk(4)
> over em(4) and athn(4), none of these
On Thu, Nov 18, 2021 at 09:02:00AM +0100, Florian Obser wrote:
> This is split in two for easier review and I also intend to commit it
> like this.
>
> The first diff shuffles setting of if_index around so that it's
> available in all switch cases and uses it consistently instead of
>