Just a thought...
With all the recent tool layer changes (involving udev, xend,
bridging etc), any chance that everything in the guest
is working just fine and everything in the hypervisor
is working just fine but the connections to the console
in your distro/configuration are not playing nicely with
the recent xen-unstable tool changes, so you just can't see
that everything (else) is fine?
(if so, please support my recent rant against changes that
cause "unnecessary pain" ;-)
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Kathy Hadley [mailto:Kathy.Hadley@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Thursday, June 24, 2010 6:54 AM
> To: Keir Fraser; George Dunlap
> Cc: xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: RE: [Xen-devel] [PATCH 1/1] Xen ARINC 653 Scheduler (updated
> to add support for CPU pools)
>
> We are using the following set-up:
> Xen-unstable changeset 21650
> Gentoo 2.6.29.6 with Xen patches for Dom0
> Linux 2.6.18-Xen for DomU (downloaded from linux-2.6.18-xen.hg)
>
> Dom0 and DomU run fine with Xen-3.4.1 and Xen-4.0.0 (our scheduler or
> the credit scheduler). Dom0 appears to run fine with xen-unstable, but
> DomU "hangs" when our scheduler or the credit scheduler (as discussed
> in
> earlier e-mails). "xm list" shows that DomU is blocked.
>
> Do you have any suggestions for how I could troubleshoot this issue?
> I'm still wondering about the warning I'm seeing issued from traps.c -
> while it could have nothing to do with my issue, it is an interesting
> coincidence.
>
> Thanks,
> Kathy Hadley
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Keir Fraser [mailto:keir.fraser@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> > Sent: Wednesday, June 23, 2010 6:36 PM
> > To: Kathy Hadley; George Dunlap
> > Cc: xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH 1/1] Xen ARINC 653 Scheduler (updated
> > to add support for CPU pools)
> >
> > I've just built latest xen-unstable.hg and linux-2.6.18-xen.hg and
> > booted a
> > domU just fine. All my builds are 64-bit though whereas yours are 32-
> > bit. I
> > suppose that could cause a difference (in particular, 32-bit
> hypervisor
> > is
> > less tested by people).
> >
> > -- Keir
> >
> > On 23/06/2010 22:16, "Kathy Hadley" <Kathy.Hadley@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Keir,
> > > I see this same behavior when I run the credit scheduler. It
> > doesn't
> > > look like it's localized to the scheduler I'm working on. I pulled
> > the
> > > latest code from http://xenbits.xensource.com/linux-2.6.18-xen.hg
> and
> > > rebuilt the kernel earlier today, with no effect.
> > >
> > > Note that I can successfully start the domain with Xen-3.4.1 and
> > > Xen-4.0.0, using the same configuration file as I am using with
> > > xen-unstable.
> > >
> > > Kathy
> > >
> > >> -----Original Message-----
> > >> From: Keir Fraser [mailto:keir.fraser@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> > >> Sent: Wednesday, June 23, 2010 4:23 PM
> > >> To: Kathy Hadley; George Dunlap
> > >> Cc: xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > >> Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH 1/1] Xen ARINC 653 Scheduler
> > (updated
> > >> to add support for CPU pools)
> > >>
> > >> On 23/06/2010 20:57, "Kathy Hadley" <Kathy.Hadley@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > >> wrote:
> > >>
> > >>> Call Trace:
> > >>> [<c01013a7>] hypercall_page+0x3a7 <--
> > >>> [<c0109005>] raw_safe_halt+0xa5
> > >>> [<c0104789>] xen_idle+0x49
> > >>> [<c010482d>] cpu_idle+0x8d
> > >>> [<c0404895>] start_kernel+0x3f5
> > >>> [<c04041d0>] do_early_param+0x80
> > >>>
> > >>> Does this shed any light on the situation?
> > >>
> > >> Looks like you're in the idle loop. So, no, it doesn't really shed
> > > much
> > >> useful light.
> > >>
> > >> -- Keir
> > >>
> > >
> >
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
|
Home