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] KernelBUGatarch/x86_64/mm/../../i386/mm/hypervisor.c:197

To: "Christophe Saout" <christophe@xxxxxxxx>, "Ian Pratt" <m+Ian.Pratt@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: RE: [Xen-devel] KernelBUGatarch/x86_64/mm/../../i386/mm/hypervisor.c:197
From: "Petersson, Mats" <Mats.Petersson@xxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 5 Oct 2006 18:38:00 +0200
Cc: xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Delivery-date: Thu, 05 Oct 2006 09:38:53 -0700
Envelope-to: www-data@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <1160057926.9558.13.camel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
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>
Sender: xen-devel-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Thread-index: Acboialj7iS7IgOeTOOEtblqyGjLaAAASO3Q
Thread-topic: [Xen-devel] KernelBUGatarch/x86_64/mm/../../i386/mm/hypervisor.c:197
 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: xen-devel-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
> [mailto:xen-devel-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of 
> Christophe Saout
> Sent: 05 October 2006 15:19
> To: Ian Pratt
> Cc: xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: RE: [Xen-devel] 
> KernelBUGatarch/x86_64/mm/../../i386/mm/hypervisor.c:197
> 
> Am Donnerstag, den 05.10.2006, 05:02 +0100 schrieb Ian Pratt:
> 
> > Glad it works for you, but I wish we understood what was 
> going on a bit
> > more. It may be that the bios is just borked and the e820 
> map it gives
> > xen misses some regions that it steals for other purposes. 
> It would be
> > pretty surprising if Xen had bugs in its e820 code. 
> > 
> > It might be interesting to post the xm dmesg output with the two
> > different BIOS settings to see if there's anything unusual about the
> > e820 map.
> 
> The only difference is in the Physical RAM map:
> 
> Broken (with memory hole remapping turned on):
> 
> (XEN) Physical RAM map:
> (XEN)  0000000000000000 - 000000000009fc00 (usable)
> (XEN)  000000000009fc00 - 00000000000a0000 (reserved)
> (XEN)  00000000000e8000 - 0000000000100000 (reserved)
> (XEN)  0000000000100000 - 00000000bfff0000 (usable)
> (XEN)  00000000bfff0000 - 00000000bffff000 (ACPI data)
> (XEN)  00000000bffff000 - 00000000c0000000 (ACPI NVS)
There is a HOLE here - c0000000 to ff780000 is "missing". That's 1GB
minus a little bit. 
> (XEN)  00000000ff780000 - 0000000100000000 (reserved)
> (XEN)  0000000100000000 - 000000030e000000 (usable)
> (XEN) System RAM: 11487MB (11763260kB)
> 
> Working (with memory hole remapping turned off):
> 
> (XEN) Physical RAM map:
> (XEN)  0000000000000000 - 000000000009fc00 (usable)
> (XEN)  000000000009fc00 - 00000000000a0000 (reserved)
> (XEN)  00000000000e8000 - 0000000000100000 (reserved)
> (XEN)  0000000000100000 - 00000000efff0000 (usable)
This area is bigger, which probably explains the more usable memory. 
> (XEN)  00000000efff0000 - 00000000effff000 (ACPI data)
> (XEN)  00000000effff000 - 00000000f0000000 (ACPI NVS)
The hole here is much smaller... Only f0000000 - ff780000, around 256MB
if my mental arithmetic isn't playing up (which it does quite
frequently). 
> (XEN)  00000000ff780000 - 0000000100000000 (reserved)
> (XEN)  0000000100000000 - 0000000300000000 (usable)
> (XEN) System RAM: 12031MB (12320316kB)
> 
> The strange thing is that the upper configuration shows even 
> less memory
> that the second one which has only 256MB missing?

That may be explained by the above comments - but I can't explain what's
going wrong in Xen with this... 

--
Mats
> 
> >  Might be worth comparing against what Linux prints too.
> 
> Ok, I'll try to boot the Dom0 without hypervisor to get some numbers
> from native Linux for comparison.
> 
> As Keir suggested, this really might be a BIOS bug. Our 
> hardware vendor
> has notified the motherboard manufacturer to have this checked (this
> already was the latest version).
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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