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

Re: [Xen-devel] X86_64 "assert" when booting 64-bit image.

To: "Petersson, Mats" <Mats.Petersson@xxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] X86_64 "assert" when booting 64-bit image.
From: Keir Fraser <Keir.Fraser@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 9 Feb 2006 16:30:58 +0000
Cc: xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Delivery-date: Thu, 09 Feb 2006 16:35:58 +0000
Envelope-to: www-data@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <907625E08839C4409CE5768403633E0B0EABE1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
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/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>, <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=subscribe>
List-unsubscribe: <http://lists.xensource.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>, <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=unsubscribe>
References: <907625E08839C4409CE5768403633E0B0EABE1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sender: xen-devel-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

On 9 Feb 2006, at 16:16, Petersson, Mats wrote:

That debug code is totally ancient. Ian may know whether it
has any relevance any more.

Thanks Keir.

I #if 0'd out the test and it flies through the rest of the stuff until
the point where it got without debug. But I don't think the checking
code was added purely because it seemed fun to add in the first place,
so I'm still a bit concerned that it may actually be pointing at
something that causes a problem... Is it really safe to remove it?

Mats,

I think that the correct thing to do is to remove that whole middle portion of __shadow_status(). That is, the entire outermost 'if' statement. (That is, the 'if ( VALID_MFN()....' all the way to 'return 0; }').

Can you please try that out and see how it works for you?

I actually think there is another problem here. PGT_fl1_shadow shadow pages are looked up by the first guest pfn in that superpage extent, but that first guest pfn may itself be a pagetable page, and no pfn can currently have more than one 'shadow status'. That needs more investigation though...

 -- Keir


_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel