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] live migration fails (assert in shadow_hash_delete)

To: Jan Beulich <JBeulich@xxxxxxxxxx>, Tim Deegan <Tim.Deegan@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] live migration fails (assert in shadow_hash_delete)
From: Keir Fraser <keir.fraser@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 26 Feb 2010 15:29:37 +0000
Cc: Ashish Bijlani <ashish.bijlani@xxxxxxxxx>, "xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Delivery-date: Fri, 26 Feb 2010 07:32:06 -0800
Envelope-to: www-data@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <4B87ED950200007800031879@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
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>
Sender: xen-devel-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Thread-index: Acq28u1RHkFp/rJmSwyNvMg5XLDaDQABZPv1
Thread-topic: [Xen-devel] live migration fails (assert in shadow_hash_delete)
User-agent: Microsoft-Entourage/12.23.0.091001
On 26/02/2010 14:49, "Jan Beulich" <JBeulich@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

>>>> Tim Deegan <Tim.Deegan@xxxxxxxxxx> 26.02.10 15:22 >>>
>> Keir, I'm still seeing (different) crashes on unstable tip even with
>> Jan's fix; the proximate cause is c/s 20954, which changes the paths
>> taken when log-dirty mode is turned off after the live migration.
>> 
>> Reverting c/s 20954 fixes migration for me and is probably the best
>> thing to get the 4.0 release schedule going again.   I'll try to find
>> the actual bug at some later date.
> 
> So perhaps the fall-through there was really intended? I had pointed
> out that these missing break statements looked suspicious, so maybe
> it's simply that those two places should be annotated accordingly?

Mmmm.. No. :-)

 -- Keir



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