From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (firstgate.proxmox.com [212.224.123.68]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by lists.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3C87E9CD60 for ; Thu, 1 Jun 2023 17:56:55 +0200 (CEST) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 1E188208FF for ; Thu, 1 Jun 2023 17:56:25 +0200 (CEST) Received: from proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (proxmox-new.maurer-it.com [94.136.29.106]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTPS for ; Thu, 1 Jun 2023 17:56:24 +0200 (CEST) Received: from proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id B71F5482EE; Thu, 1 Jun 2023 17:56:23 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: Date: Thu, 1 Jun 2023 17:56:17 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/102.11.0 To: "DERUMIER, Alexandre" , "pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com" , "aderumier@odiso.com" References: <20230522102528.186955-1-aderumier@odiso.com> <4d8191f2-4954-1e4f-a40c-51544289b2ce@proxmox.com> <036ad8c33f6af74da89eb8b9c24c1c6cda8fc938.camel@groupe-cyllene.com> <971898fbd097f9a6817a36dfedf6eae6477339bf.camel@groupe-cyllene.com> Content-Language: en-US From: Fiona Ebner In-Reply-To: <971898fbd097f9a6817a36dfedf6eae6477339bf.camel@groupe-cyllene.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL -0.003 Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: address BAYES_00 -1.9 Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1% DMARC_MISSING 0.1 Missing DMARC policy KAM_DMARC_STATUS 0.01 Test Rule for DKIM or SPF Failure with Strict Alignment NICE_REPLY_A -0.091 Looks like a legit reply (A) SPF_HELO_NONE 0.001 SPF: HELO does not publish an SPF Record SPF_PASS -0.001 SPF: sender matches SPF record T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE -0.01 - Subject: Re: [pve-devel] [PATCH-SERIES v3 qemu-server/manager/common] add and set x86-64-v2 as default model for new vms and detect best cpumodel X-BeenThere: pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Proxmox VE development discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 01 Jun 2023 15:56:55 -0000 Am 01.06.23 um 15:53 schrieb DERUMIER, Alexandre: >>> >>> What AMD CPUs did you try it on? >>> >> epyc v2/v3 with last microcodes >> >> >> does it work with x86-64-v3 ?  (because the other patch of the series >> could autofind the best new model if it's working) > > Looking at linux kernel code, they have some quirks based on cpu model > number && vendor > > nehalem is .family = 6, .model = 26, > > kvm64 is .family = 15, .model = 6 > > qemu64 is.family = 15, .model = 107, > Yeah, could be. I did try today with qm set 102 -args '-cpu Nehalem,+aes,-svm,-vmx,model-id="foo bar",vendor="AuthenticAMD"' and couldn't trigger the issue getting stuck during installation anymore. Switching back to manually selected Nehalem in the UI with the generated -cpu Nehalem,+aes,enforce,+kvm_pv_eoi,+kvm_pv_unhalt,vendor=GenuineIntel I got the hang during my first installation attempt again. Then I tried around a bit more and now I'm suspecting it is something in combination with the +kvm_pv_unhalt flag. I got a hang with just qm set 102 -args '-cpu Nehalem,+kvm_pv_unhalt,vendor=GenuineIntel And I didn't ever get a hang without that flag yet. Aaron had also only had hangs with that flag. But it's not like it hangs every time with the flag either. > > maybe it could be interesting to test with adding flags from > qemu64/kvm4 to see if it's the same behaviour ? > > > from kvm64, xf86-64-v2 is > > '+lahf_lm,+popcnt, +sse4.1,sse4.2, +ssse3' (and optionnal +aes) Yes, let's do that! It does sound cleaner than to base it off Nehalem. FWIW, qm set 102 -args '-cpu kvm64,enforce,+kvm_pv_eoi,+kvm_pv_unhalt,+sep,+lahf_lm,+popcnt,+sse4.1,+sse4.2,+ssse3' worked just now, but will need to test more tomorrow. > does it work with x86-64-v3 ? (because the other patch of the series > could autofind the best new model if it's working) I didn't test, but I'd be careful with bumping it even more. I'd like to focus on getting the new default in for the next major release. The best model selection needs more consideration and can always be added after the release.