WARNING - OLD ARCHIVES

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/
   
 
 
Xen 		  
Home Products Support Community News
 
   
 

xen-devel

[Top] [All Lists]
<prev [Date] next>
[Advanced]
 <prev [Thread] next>

Re: [Xen-devel] Guest OS boots up slowly

from [Masaki Kanno] [Permanent Link][Original]
To: George Dunlap <George.Dunlap@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Keir Fraser <keir.fraser@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] Guest OS boots up slowly
From: Masaki Kanno <kanno.masaki@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 02 Oct 2009 17:55:25 +0900
Cc: "xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Delivery-date: Fri, 02 Oct 2009 01:56:02 -0700
Envelope-to: www-data@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <de76405a0909020348x63461f3bubef116e1c40d3337@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
List-help: <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=help>
List-id: Xen developer discussion <xen-devel.lists.xensource.com>
List-post: <mailto:xen-devel@lists.xensource.com>
List-subscribe: <http://lists.xensource.com/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>, <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=subscribe>
List-unsubscribe: <http://lists.xensource.com/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>, <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=unsubscribe>
References: <de76405a0908310610s31488f0ara4d8f8f3404fd752@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <76CA2A9495EA9Ckanno.masaki@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <78CA2ADE8C4A87kanno.masaki@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <de76405a0909020348x63461f3bubef116e1c40d3337@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sender: xen-devel-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
Hi George, Keir,

I confirmed the problem was fixed by changeset 20270.
Thanks, Keir!!

Best regards,
 Kan

Wed, 2 Sep 2009 11:48:22 +0100, George Dunlap wrote:

>Thanks Masaki!  I've taken a quick look at the trace and haven't seen
>anything really obvious.  Unfortunately I have some urgent work to do
>for XenServer, so this will have to take a back burner for a week or
>so.
>
>If anyone else is willing to investigate the problem, I certainly
>won't object. :-)
>
> -George
>
>2009/9/1 Masaki Kanno <kanno.masaki@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
>> Hi George,
>>
>> I tested xen-unstable (changeset: 20128) and linux-2.6.18-xen
>> (changeset: 931) with the following cases.
>> debit-accounted-only.diff doesn't fix the problem.
>> I will send a trace data file to only you because the size of
>> the file is big.
>>
>> Case1 : With debit-accounted-only.diff, cpu_weight dom0:domU = 256:256
>> ? ? ?| vcpus | cpu_cap | boot-up ? ?|
>> ? ? ?| ? ? ? | ? ? ? ? | times[sec] |
>> ? ? ?+-------+---------+------------+
>> ? ? ?| ? 1 ? | ? ? 0 ? | ? ? 57 ? ? |
>> ? ? ?| ? 1 ? | ? ?50 ? | ? ? 80 ? ? |
>> ? ? ?| ? 1 ? | ? 100 ? | ? ? 56 ? ? |
>> ? ? ?| ? 2 ? | ? ? 0 ? | ? ? 51 ? ? |
>> ? ? ?| ? 2 ? | ? ?50 ? | ? ? 93 ? ? |
>> ? ? ?| ? 2 ? | ? 100 ? | ? ? 62 ? ? |
>> ? ? ?| ? 2 ? | ? 150 ? | ? ? 54 ? ? |
>> ? ? ?| ? 2 ? | ? 200 ? | ? ? 50 ? ? |
>>
>> Case2 : With debit-accounted-only.diff, cpu_weight dom0:domU = 256:512
>> ? ? ?| vcpus | cpu_cap | boot-up ? ?|
>> ? ? ?| ? ? ? | ? ? ? ? | times[sec] |
>> ? ? ?+-------+---------+------------+
>> ? ? ?| ? 1 ? | ? ? 0 ? | ? ? 57 ? ? |
>> ? ? ?| ? 1 ? | ? ?50 ? | ? ?725 ? ? | Slow!!
>> ? ? ?| ? 1 ? | ? 100 ? | ? ? 57 ? ? |
>> ? ? ?| ? 2 ? | ? ? 0 ? | ? ? 51 ? ? |
>> ? ? ?| ? 2 ? | ? ?50 ? | 1,000 over | I gave up the measurement.
>> ? ? ?| ? 2 ? | ? 100 ? | ? ?784 ? ? | Slow!!
>> ? ? ?| ? 2 ? | ? 150 ? | ? ?567 ? ? | Slow!!
>> ? ? ?| ? 2 ? | ? 200 ? | ? ? 51 ? ? |
>>
>> Case3 : No patch, cpu_weight dom0:domU = 256:256
>> ? ? ?| vcpus | cpu_cap | boot-up ? ?|
>> ? ? ?| ? ? ? | ? ? ? ? | times[sec] |
>> ? ? ?+-------+---------+------------+
>> ? ? ?| ? 1 ? | ? ? 0 ? | ? ? 57 ? ? |
>> ? ? ?| ? 1 ? | ? ?50 ? | ? ? 80 ? ? |
>> ? ? ?| ? 1 ? | ? 100 ? | ? ? 57 ? ? |
>> ? ? ?| ? 2 ? | ? ? 0 ? | ? ? 50 ? ? |
>> ? ? ?| ? 2 ? | ? ?50 ? | ? ? 95 ? ? |
>> ? ? ?| ? 2 ? | ? 100 ? | ? ? 61 ? ? |
>> ? ? ?| ? 2 ? | ? 150 ? | ? ? 53 ? ? |
>> ? ? ?| ? 2 ? | ? 200 ? | ? ? 50 ? ? |
>>
>> Case4 : No patch, cpu_weight dom0:domU = 256:512
>> ? ? ?| vcpus | cpu_cap | boot-up ? ?|
>> ? ? ?| ? ? ? | ? ? ? ? | times[sec] |
>> ? ? ?+-------+---------+------------+
>> ? ? ?| ? 1 ? | ? ? 0 ? | ? ? 57 ? ? |
>> ? ? ?| ? 1 ? | ? ?50 ? | ? ?575 ? ? | Slow!!
>> ? ? ?| ? 1 ? | ? 100 ? | ? ? 57 ? ? |
>> ? ? ?| ? 2 ? | ? ? 0 ? | ? ? 50 ? ? |
>> ? ? ?| ? 2 ? | ? ?50 ? | ? ?594 ? ? | Slow!!
>> ? ? ?| ? 2 ? | ? 100 ? | ? ?450 ? ? | Slow!!
>> ? ? ?| ? 2 ? | ? 150 ? | ? ?290 ? ? | Slow!!
>> ? ? ?| ? 2 ? | ? 200 ? | ? ? 51 ? ? |
>>
>> Case5 : Without changeset 20122, cpu_weight dom0:domU = 256:256
>> ? ? ?| vcpus | cpu_cap | boot-up ? ?|
>> ? ? ?| ? ? ? | ? ? ? ? | times[sec] |
>> ? ? ?+-------+---------+------------+
>> ? ? ?| ? 1 ? | ? ? 0 ? | ? ? 57 ? ? |
>> ? ? ?| ? 1 ? | ? ?50 ? | ? ? 80 ? ? |
>> ? ? ?| ? 1 ? | ? 100 ? | ? ? 56 ? ? |
>> ? ? ?| ? 2 ? | ? ? 0 ? | ? ? 50 ? ? |
>> ? ? ?| ? 2 ? | ? ?50 ? | ? ? 95 ? ? |
>> ? ? ?| ? 2 ? | ? 100 ? | ? ? 61 ? ? |
>> ? ? ?| ? 2 ? | ? 150 ? | ? ? 53 ? ? |
>> ? ? ?| ? 2 ? | ? 200 ? | ? ? 50 ? ? |
>>
>> Case6 : Without changeset 20122, cpu_weight dom0:domU = 256:512
>> ? ? ?| vcpus | cpu_cap | boot-up ? ?|
>> ? ? ?| ? ? ? | ? ? ? ? | times[sec] |
>> ? ? ?+-------+---------+------------+
>> ? ? ?| ? 1 ? | ? ? 0 ? | ? ? 56 ? ? |
>> ? ? ?| ? 1 ? | ? ?50 ? | ? ? 80 ? ? |
>> ? ? ?| ? 1 ? | ? 100 ? | ? ? 56 ? ? |
>> ? ? ?| ? 2 ? | ? ? 0 ? | ? ? 50 ? ? |
>> ? ? ?| ? 2 ? | ? ?50 ? | ? ? 95 ? ? |
>> ? ? ?| ? 2 ? | ? 100 ? | ? ? 61 ? ? |
>> ? ? ?| ? 2 ? | ? 150 ? | ? ? 53 ? ? |
>> ? ? ?| ? 2 ? | ? 200 ? | ? ? 50 ? ? |
>>
>>
>> Best regards,
>> ?Kan
>>
>> Tue, 01 Sep 2009 08:41:39 +0900, Masaki Kanno wrote:
>>
>>>Hi George,
>>>
>>>I will try them on today.
>>>
>>> Kan
>>>
>>>Mon, 31 Aug 2009 14:10:47 +0100, George Dunlap wrote:
>>>
>>>>Hmm, it appears my patch still debits credits for VMs that aren't
>>>>earning credits anymore; such VMs can earn an unlimited amount of
>>>>negative credit before becoming active again.
>>>>
>>>>Try the attached patches; if it doesn't fix the problem, please take a
>>>>short trace during boot using the following command and send it to me:
>>>>
>>>># xentrace -D -e 0x2f000 -S 128 -s 1000 /tmp/sched-boot.trace
>>>>
>>>>Thanks,
>>>> -George
>>>>
>>>>On Mon, Aug 31, 2009 at 9:34 AM, Keir Fraser<keir.fraser@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>>>wrote:
>>>>> Hi Maskai,
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks for the report. It's a good idea to Cc the patch author when 
>>>>> making
>>>>> bug reports. In this case it's George Dunlap who I've cc'ed in this 
>>>>> reply.
>>>>>
>>>>> ?-- Keir
>>>>>
>>>>> On 31/08/2009 07:50, "Masaki Kanno" <kanno.masaki@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I tested the latest xen-unstable (changeset: 20128) and the latest
>>>>>> linux-2.6.18-xen (changeset: 931). ?A guest OS is booted up slower
>>>>>> than before. ?And the following messages are shown by the guest OS.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Switching to new root and running init.
>>>>>> unmounting old /dev
>>>>>> unmounting old /proc
>>>>>> unmounting old /sys
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ? ***************************************************************
>>>>>> ? ***************************************************************
>>>>>> ? ** WARNING: Currently emulating unsupported memory accesses ?**
>>>>>> ? ** ? ? ? ? ?in /lib/tls glibc libraries. The emulation is ? ?**
>>>>>> ? ** ? ? ? ? ?slow. To ensure full performance you should ? ? ?**
>>>>>> ? ** ? ? ? ? ?install a 'xen-friendly' (nosegneg) version of ? **
>>>>>> ? ** ? ? ? ? ?the library, or disable tls support by executing **
>>>>>> ? ** ? ? ? ? ?the following as root: ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? **
>>>>>> ? ** ? ? ? ? ?mv /lib/tls /lib/tls.disabled ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?**
>>>>>> ? ** Offending process: modprobe (pid=761) ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? **
>>>>>> ? ***************************************************************
>>>>>> ? ***************************************************************
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Pausing... 5<3>BUG: soft lockup detected on CPU#0!
>>>>>> ?[<c0151205>] softlockup_tick+0xa5/0xd0
>>>>>> ?[<c010978a>] timer_interrupt+0x2fa/0x6c0
>>>>>> ?[<c011d8c1>] __activate_task+0x21/0x40
>>>>>> ?[<c012fed0>] lock_timer_base+0x20/0x50
>>>>>> ?[<c0151563>] handle_IRQ_event+0x33/0xa0
>>>>>> ?[<c0151678>] __do_IRQ+0xa8/0x120
>>>>>> ?[<c01076e1>] do_IRQ+0x31/0x80
>>>>>> ?[<c02af6b0>] neigh_periodic_timer+0x0/0x140
>>>>>> ?[<c024ced5>] evtchn_do_upcall+0xe5/0x1f0
>>>>>> ?[<c0115fb0>] do_fixup_4gb_segment+0x0/0x170
>>>>>> ?[<c0105ba3>] hypervisor_callback+0x33/0x3b
>>>>>> ?[<c0115fb0>] do_fixup_4gb_segment+0x0/0x170
>>>>>> ?[<c01ed68b>] delay_tsc+0xb/0x20
>>>>>> ?[<c01ed6d6>] __delay+0x6/0x10
>>>>>> ?[<c01160f0>] do_fixup_4gb_segment+0x140/0x170
>>>>>> ?[<c0169597>] do_munmap+0x197/0x200
>>>>>> ?[<c01ee0a4>] copy_to_user+0x34/0x70
>>>>>> ?[<c0105b6b>] error_code+0x2b/0x30
>>>>>> Continuing...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> FYI, when I reverted changeset 20122 of xen-unstable, the guest OS
>>>>>> is booted up as before.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Best regards,
>>>>>> ?Kan
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> Xen-devel mailing list
>>>>>> Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>>>>> http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> Xen-devel mailing list
>>>>> Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>>>> http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>-------------------------------text/plain-------------------------------
>>>>_______________________________________________
>>>>Xen-devel mailing list
>>>>Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>>>http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
>>>
>>>
>>>_______________________________________________
>>>Xen-devel mailing list
>>>Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>>http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Xen-devel mailing list
>> Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
>>


_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
[More with this subject...]
<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
  • Re: [Xen-devel] Guest OS boots up slowly, Masaki Kanno <=
Previous by Date:  [Xen-devel] [IA64] Weekly benchmark results [2009ww39], KUWAMURA Shin'ya
Next by Date:  [Xen-devel] Re: Compile warning, Ferenc Wagner
Previous by Thread:  [Xen-devel] [IA64] Weekly benchmark results [2009ww39], KUWAMURA Shin'ya
Next by Thread:  [Xen-devel] Re: slow storage backend kills stubdomains, Stefano Stabellini
Indexes:  [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists]
 
   

Copyright , Citrix Systems Inc. All rights reserved. Legal and Privacy