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


[Xen-devel] RE: Xen 4.1 rc1 test report

To: "Wei, Gang" <gang.wei@xxxxxxxxx>, "Zheng, Shaohui" <shaohui.zheng@xxxxxxxxx>, "xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [Xen-devel] RE: Xen 4.1 rc1 test report
From: "Wei, Gang" <gang.wei@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2011 13:52:46 +0800
Accept-language: zh-CN, en-US
Acceptlanguage: zh-CN, en-US
Cc: Keir Fraser <keir@xxxxxxx>, "Wei, Gang" <gang.wei@xxxxxxxxx>
Delivery-date: Tue, 25 Jan 2011 21:54:08 -0800
Envelope-to: www-data@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <F26D193E20BBDC42A43B611D1BDEDE712556378690@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
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: <A24AE1FFE7AEC5489F83450EE98351BF2BF2EC4CB0@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <F26D193E20BBDC42A43B611D1BDEDE712556378690@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sender: xen-devel-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Thread-index: Acu6GEBstpnTfIH/TdeQZvf0FjUZ0QAOlF+wAI5FPEAAJDXLMA==
Thread-topic: Xen 4.1 rc1 test report
Wei, Gang wrote on 2011-01-25:
>> 2. [VT-d]xen panic on function do_IRQ after many times NIC pass-throu
>> (Intel)
>> http://bugzilla.xensource.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=1706
> There are three points we may need to do:
> 1. Figure out the root cause why the pciback could not locate the device.
> I suspect the previous 'xl destroy' didn't return the device to
> pcistub successfully.
> 2. Figure out the root cause why the guest pirq was not force unbound.
> Just found:
> Some time because if ( !IS_PRIV_FOR(current->domain, d) ) hit, so
> returned with -EINVAL; Sometime if ( !(desc->status & IRQ_GUEST) )
> hit, so do not unbind.
> 3. Think about how we could prevent such cases from panic Xen.

Just found sometime while doing domain_destroy the current->domain is IDLE 
domain, so the if ( !IS_PRIV_FOR(current->domain, d) ) hit and skip the pirq 
forcible unbinding. How could it happen?


Xen-devel mailing list