We've tried the latest changesets in xen-unstable and the xen-unstable
staging area, and still have the same issue. To re-cap, we are using
the 32-bit hypervisor with the credit scheduler. Dom0 appears to boot
successfully, but when we attempt to start unprivileged domains they
hang and appear to be stuck in an idle loop.
This appears to have been introduced in changeset 21507.
I'd appreciate suggestions for how to fix this issue.
Thank you,
Kathy Hadley
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Keir Fraser [mailto:keir.fraser@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Wednesday, June 30, 2010 4:54 PM
> To: Kathy Hadley; George Dunlap
> Cc: xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Ian Campbell
> Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH 1/1] Xen ARINC 653 Scheduler (updated
> to add support for CPU pools)
>
> On 30/06/2010 21:44, "Kathy Hadley" <Kathy.Hadley@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> wrote:
>
> > Good afternoon,
> > We have determined that changeset 21507 introduced the error that
> > prevents unprivileged domains from running on our machine using the
> > 32-bit hypervisor.
> >
> > With changeset 21506, we are able to run unprivileged domains
using
> > the credit scheduler. We cannot do so with changeset 21507 (or
> > subsequent changesets) -- the unprivileged domains appear to be
stuck
> in
> > an idle loop (as indicated by the call trace below).
> >
> > I'd appreciate help addressing this issue.
>
> The tools no longer automatically create /dev/xen/evtchn and expect it
> to
> already be created by the distro (e.g., via a udev rule) My guess
would
> be
> that you are missing /dev/xen/evtchn. Ccing the patch author.
>
> -- Keir
>
> > Thanks,
> > Kathy Hadley
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Keir Fraser [mailto:keir.fraser@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> >> Sent: Wednesday, June 23, 2010 6:36 PM
> >> To: Kathy Hadley; George Dunlap
> >> Cc: xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >> Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH 1/1] Xen ARINC 653 Scheduler
> (updated
> >> to add support for CPU pools)
> >>
> >> I've just built latest xen-unstable.hg and linux-2.6.18-xen.hg and
> >> booted a
> >> domU just fine. All my builds are 64-bit though whereas yours are
> 32-
> >> bit. I
> >> suppose that could cause a difference (in particular, 32-bit
> > hypervisor
> >> is
> >> less tested by people).
> >>
> >> -- Keir
> >>
> >> On 23/06/2010 22:16, "Kathy Hadley" <Kathy.Hadley@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Keir,
> >>> I see this same behavior when I run the credit scheduler. It
> >> doesn't
> >>> look like it's localized to the scheduler I'm working on. I
pulled
> >> the
> >>> latest code from http://xenbits.xensource.com/linux-2.6.18-xen.hg
> > and
> >>> rebuilt the kernel earlier today, with no effect.
> >>>
> >>> Note that I can successfully start the domain with Xen-3.4.1 and
> >>> Xen-4.0.0, using the same configuration file as I am using with
> >>> xen-unstable.
> >>>
> >>> Kathy
> >>>
> >>>> -----Original Message-----
> >>>> From: Keir Fraser [mailto:keir.fraser@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> >>>> Sent: Wednesday, June 23, 2010 4:23 PM
> >>>> To: Kathy Hadley; George Dunlap
> >>>> Cc: xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >>>> Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH 1/1] Xen ARINC 653 Scheduler
> >> (updated
> >>>> to add support for CPU pools)
> >>>>
> >>>> On 23/06/2010 20:57, "Kathy Hadley"
<Kathy.Hadley@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >>>> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> Call Trace:
> >>>>> [<c01013a7>] hypercall_page+0x3a7 <--
> >>>>> [<c0109005>] raw_safe_halt+0xa5
> >>>>> [<c0104789>] xen_idle+0x49
> >>>>> [<c010482d>] cpu_idle+0x8d
> >>>>> [<c0404895>] start_kernel+0x3f5
> >>>>> [<c04041d0>] do_early_param+0x80
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Does this shed any light on the situation?
> >>>>
> >>>> Looks like you're in the idle loop. So, no, it doesn't really
shed
> >>> much
> >>>> useful light.
> >>>>
> >>>> -- Keir
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>
> >
>
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
|
Home