Thanks for your suggestion,
Please send me your buildlinux script, see whether I can reproduce it.
And I can do this stress_test before I send patch..
Thanks
Anthony
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Magenheimer, Dan (HP Labs Fort Collins) [mailto:dan.magenheimer@xxxxxx]
>Sent: 2005年9月15日 10:18
>To: Xu, Anthony
>Cc: xen-ia64-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>Subject: RE: [Xen-ia64-devel] [PATCH] This is the first patch to merge vcpu.c
>
>I forgot to add: This kind of bug is VERY difficult to
>find and fix because there is no obvious trigger to
>start debugging. With the segmentation fault, the
>delivery of a fault is rare enough that one can
>add code to the hypervisor to printf info when it
>happens, but if a user app (especially something
>as large and complex as a compiler) just goes into
>an infinite loop, there's nothing as a trigger.
>
>If you can reproduce this, I'd suggest breaking
>down the patch into smaller patches to see what
>specific change causes the problem. If I just
>accept the patch, it will be much harder to track
>the problem down later.
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: xen-ia64-devel-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> [mailto:xen-ia64-devel-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf
>> Of Magenheimer, Dan (HP Labs Fort Collins)
>> Sent: Wednesday, September 14, 2005 8:09 PM
>> To: Xu, Anthony
>> Cc: xen-ia64-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> Subject: RE: [Xen-ia64-devel] [PATCH] This is the first patch
>> to merge vcpu.c
>>
>> Yes, definitely, I run my stress test before checking
>> in any change. I do periodically see a segmentation
>> fault (ever since about mid-July when the first round
>> of merge changes went in) that I haven't been able
>> to isolate yet, but have never seen this "freeze"
>> behavior before.
>>
>> > -----Original Message-----
>> > From: Xu, Anthony [mailto:anthony.xu@xxxxxxxxx]
>> > Sent: Wednesday, September 14, 2005 7:03 PM
>> > To: Magenheimer, Dan (HP Labs Fort Collins)
>> > Cc: xen-ia64-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> > Subject: RE: [Xen-ia64-devel] [PATCH] This is the first patch
>> > to merge vcpu.c
>> >
>> > Hi Dan,
>> >
>> > I haven't stress-tested my patch, my patch almost doesn't
>> > touch xeno code,
>> > I am curious have you done the same stress-test on dom0
>> > without my patch?
>> > I think we'd better setup the infrastructure ( domU and VTdom
>> > up) first, then we will come back to make all this stable.
>> >
>> > Thanks
>> > Anthony
>> >
>> > >-----Original Message-----
>> > >From: Magenheimer, Dan (HP Labs Fort Collins)
>> > [mailto:dan.magenheimer@xxxxxx]
>> > >Sent: 2005年9月14日 12:48
>> > >To: Xu, Anthony
>> > >Cc: xen-ia64-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> > >Subject: RE: [Xen-ia64-devel] [PATCH] This is the first
>> > patch to merge vcpu.c
>> > >
>> > >Hi Anthony --
>> > >
>> > >I tried your patch. It applies cleanly and compiles
>> > >cleanly. However, I am seeing problems when testing it.
>> > >I run a script that builds linux ten times as
>> > >a stress test. During this test, twice, gcc has
>> > >frozen or gotten into an infinite loop; I'm not
>> > >really sure other than it continues to eat up CPU
>> > >time and not make forward progress. Other times
>> > >building linux completes OK.
>> > >
>> > >Have you stress-tested the patch on your system?
>> > >I would be curious whether you can reproduce it.
>> > >I can send you my buildlinux script if you like.
>> > >
>> > >Dan
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >> -----Original Message-----
>> > >> From: Xu, Anthony [mailto:anthony.xu@xxxxxxxxx]
>> > >> Sent: Monday, September 12, 2005 6:28 AM
>> > >> To: Magenheimer, Dan (HP Labs Fort Collins)
>> > >> Cc: xen-ia64-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> > >> Subject: [Xen-ia64-devel] [PATCH] This is the first patch to
>> > >> merge vcpu.c
>> > >>
>> > >> Dan,
>> > >> This patch is based on ver 6723. And definitely I can boot
>> > >> dom0 with this patch.
>> > >>
>> > >> Following things are done in this patch.
>> > >> 1. Merge structure pt_reg.
>> > >> 2. Though vcpu_info structure has been merged, non-vt domain
>> > >> used pointer vcpu->vcpu_info->arch.privregs, and vt domain
>> > >> used pointer vcpu->arch.arch_vmx.vpd, the value of these two
>> > >> pointers are different, that means vt and non-vt domain still
>> > >> use different privileged registers pages, in this case, we
>> > >> can't merge vcpu.c, so I merged these two pointer, and put it
>> > >> at vcpu->arch.privregs. vcpu->vcpu_info->arch.privregs and
>> > >> vcpu->arch.arch_vmx.vpd will not exist. Why put it at
>> > >> vcpu->arch.privregs? 1. There will be one less pointer
>> > >> unreferenced when accessing this privileged registers page.
>> > >> 2. vcpu->vcpu_info can be accessed by guest, but guest can't
>> > >> access privileged registers page through this address, guest
>> > >> can access this privileged page only through another special
>> > >> mapping. So there is no need to expose this pointer to guest
>> > >> by putting it in vcpu->vcpu_info structure. All accesses to
>> > >> this page is through VCPU(vcpu,y) macro,
>> > >> 3. Merged following functions.
>> > >> Vcpu_set/get_(interruption control registers from cr16
>> > >> to cr25), corresponding functions vmx_vcpu_set/get_***
>> > will not exist.
>> > >> Vcpu->arch.arch_vmx.in_service[4] will not exist, we
>> > >> will all use vcpu->arch.insvc[4]
>> > >> 4. Cleaned up some unused structure members and codes.
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >> Signed-off-by Anthony Xu <Anthony.xu@xxxxxxxxx>
>> > >>
>> > >> Thanks,
>> > >> Anthony
>> > >>
>> >
>>
_______________________________________________
Xen-ia64-devel mailing list
Xen-ia64-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-ia64-devel
|
Home