This is an archived copy of the Xen.org mailing list, which we have preserved to ensure that existing links to archives are not broken. The live archive, which contains the latest emails, can be found at http://lists.xen.org/
Home Products Support Community News


Re: [Xen-devel] segfault in VM

To: James Harper <JamesH@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] segfault in VM
From: Keir Fraser <Keir.Fraser@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 20 Jul 2004 08:59:44 +0100
Cc: xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Delivery-date: Tue, 20 Jul 2004 09:01:37 +0100
Envelope-to: steven.hand@xxxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: Your message of "Tue, 20 Jul 2004 11:04:22 +1000." <B79DAC46-6C42-47DC-8A54-0B0D4386C52A@mimectl>
List-archive: <http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?forum=xen-devel>
List-help: <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=help>
List-id: List for Xen developers <xen-devel.lists.sourceforge.net>
List-post: <mailto:xen-devel@lists.sourceforge.net>
List-subscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/xen-devel>, <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=subscribe>
List-unsubscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/xen-devel>, <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=unsubscribe>
Sender: xen-devel-admin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
I've just checked in a few networking fixes that should make things
rather more robust in low-memory conditions. I suspect there are still
some bugs lurking somewhere, but hopefully this has thinned out the
bugs somewhat.

 -- Keir

> bk pull only showed 2 patches, neither of which affected kernels so
> I didn't bother recompiling.
> I have seen an error (shown by my diff script 'compare' or by xend
> doing silly things like crashing), by simply starting another domain
> and pinging it with something like:
> ping -s 1400 -i 0.001
> (ping -f might do it but I think it goes a bit fast)
> That occured once after about 5 minutes, but then not again for the 10 or so 
> minutes I left it running.
> running it out of memory with this code:
> #include <stdio.h>
> #include <stdlib.h>
> int main() {
>         char *buf;
>         int mem = 0;
>         int size = 1;
>         char rnd;
>         rnd = rand() & 255;
>         while(1) {
>                 buf = (char *)malloc(size*1024*1024);
>                 memset(buf, rnd, size*1024*1024);
>                 if (buf != NULL) {
>                         mem += size;
>                         printf("%d\n", mem);
>                 }
>         }
> }
> causes a crash far more quickly. I guess it's possible that those are two 
> different errors though...
> James

This SF.Net email is sponsored by BEA Weblogic Workshop
FREE Java Enterprise J2EE developer tools!
Get your free copy of BEA WebLogic Workshop 8.1 today.
Xen-devel mailing list