Hi! Is there a known problem with Xen 2.0.6 and MMX on Pentium III? I have a program with an optimized routine that uses MMX instructions. This program''s self test failed 3 out of 4 times when it was running under a Xen domain 0 kernel (2.6.11.10). The code is known to work and i''m quite sure it''s not a hardware problem as it works fine if i reboot and run it in Linux without the hypervisor. I saw someone had a problem with FPU a couple of months ago but i believe his problems disappeared when he switched from 2.0.5 to 2.0.6. (If i recall correctly, this guy also had a p3 500mhz cpu). Could this be a similar issue where SIMD regs aren''t saved/restored properly? -- j /proc/cpuinfo: vendor_id : GenuineIntel cpu family : 6 model : 7 model name : Pentium III (Katmai) stepping : 2 cpu MHz : 495.127 cache size : 512 KB fdiv_bug : no hlt_bug : no f00f_bug : no coma_bug : no fpu : yes fpu_exception : yes cpuid level : 2 wp : yes flags : fpu vme de pse tsc msr pae mce cx8 sep mtrr pge mca cmov pat pse36 mmx fxsr sse Software: Xen 2.0.6 Linux 2.6.11.10 domain 0 kernel gcc version 3.3.5-20050130 (Gentoo Linux 3.3.5.20050130-r1, ssp-3.3.5.20050130-1, pie-8.7.7.1) glibc-2.3.4.20041102-r1 without NTPL / TLS Sources for the above Xen stuff was obtained from installing stuff from the tarball on http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=70161 _______________________________________________ Xen-users mailing list Xen-users@lists.xensource.com http://lists.xensource.com/xen-users
> Is there a known problem with Xen 2.0.6 and MMX on Pentium III?Please can you try 2.0-testing Thanks, Ian> I have a program with an optimized routine that uses MMX > instructions. > This program''s self test failed 3 out of 4 times when it was > running under a Xen domain 0 kernel (2.6.11.10). > > The code is known to work and i''m quite sure it''s not a > hardware problem as it works fine if i reboot and run it in > Linux without the hypervisor. > > I saw someone had a problem with FPU a couple of months ago > but i believe his problems disappeared when he switched from > 2.0.5 to 2.0.6. > (If i recall correctly, this guy also had a p3 500mhz cpu). > > Could this be a similar issue where SIMD regs aren''t > saved/restored properly? > > -- j > > > /proc/cpuinfo: > vendor_id : GenuineIntel > cpu family : 6 > model : 7 > model name : Pentium III (Katmai) > stepping : 2 > cpu MHz : 495.127 > cache size : 512 KB > fdiv_bug : no > hlt_bug : no > f00f_bug : no > coma_bug : no > fpu : yes > fpu_exception : yes > cpuid level : 2 > wp : yes > flags : fpu vme de pse tsc msr pae mce cx8 sep mtrr pge mca > cmov pat pse36 mmx fxsr sse > > Software: > Xen 2.0.6 > Linux 2.6.11.10 domain 0 kernel > gcc version 3.3.5-20050130 (Gentoo Linux 3.3.5.20050130-r1, > ssp-3.3.5.20050130-1, pie-8.7.7.1) > glibc-2.3.4.20041102-r1 without NTPL / TLS > > Sources for the above Xen stuff was obtained from installing > stuff from the tarball on http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=70161 > > _______________________________________________ > Xen-users mailing list > Xen-users@lists.xensource.com > http://lists.xensource.com/xen-users >_______________________________________________ Xen-users mailing list Xen-users@lists.xensource.com http://lists.xensource.com/xen-users
Hi, On Fri, Jul 15, 2005 at 09:45:33AM +0200, joe average wrote:> I saw someone had a problem with FPU a couple of months ago but i > believe his problems disappeared when he switched from 2.0.5 to 2.0.6. > (If i recall correctly, this guy also had a p3 500mhz cpu).I think it was me. My problem didn''t really disappeared until I switched to -unstable. I haven''t tried 2.0 tree after 2.0.6, so -testing might be worth a try.> /proc/cpuinfo: > vendor_id : GenuineIntel > cpu family : 6 > model : 7 > model name : Pentium III (Katmai) > stepping : 2Same stepping as mine. -- Takeshi _______________________________________________ Xen-users mailing list Xen-users@lists.xensource.com http://lists.xensource.com/xen-users
> On Fri, Jul 15, 2005 at 09:45:33AM +0200, joe average wrote: > > I saw someone had a problem with FPU a couple of months ago but i > > believe his problems disappeared when he switched from > 2.0.5 to 2.0.6. > > (If i recall correctly, this guy also had a p3 500mhz cpu). > > I think it was me. > My problem didn''t really disappeared until I switched to -unstable. > > I haven''t tried 2.0 tree after 2.0.6, so -testing might be > worth a try.If you use a kernel config other than the -xen0 or -xenU ones that we supply, its definitely worth a try. Ian _______________________________________________ Xen-users mailing list Xen-users@lists.xensource.com http://lists.xensource.com/xen-users
Ian Pratt wrote:>>Is there a known problem with Xen 2.0.6 and MMX on Pentium III? > > > Please can you try 2.0-testingWith 2.0-testing i''m not able to reproduce that problem anymore. Thanks! -- j _______________________________________________ Xen-users mailing list Xen-users@lists.xensource.com http://lists.xensource.com/xen-users
On Fri, Jul 15, 2005 at 10:01:29AM +0100, Ian Pratt wrote:> > On Fri, Jul 15, 2005 at 09:45:33AM +0200, joe average wrote: > > > I saw someone had a problem with FPU a couple of months ago but i > > > believe his problems disappeared when he switched from > > 2.0.5 to 2.0.6. > > > (If i recall correctly, this guy also had a p3 500mhz cpu). > > > > I think it was me. > > My problem didn''t really disappeared until I switched to -unstable. > > > > I haven''t tried 2.0 tree after 2.0.6, so -testing might be > > worth a try. > > If you use a kernel config other than the -xen0 or -xenU ones that we > supply, its definitely worth a try.Yesterday I switched from -unstable to 2.0.7, and found that my problems related to FPU are totally disappeared! I''ve been using my own kernel .config derived from pre-xen .config. _______________________________________________ Xen-users mailing list Xen-users@lists.xensource.com http://lists.xensource.com/xen-users