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

AW: RE: AW: Re: [Xen-devel] ACPI problem, was Xen BUG in mm / Xen 4.0.1

To: "Carsten Schiers" <carsten@xxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: AW: RE: AW: Re: [Xen-devel] ACPI problem, was Xen BUG in mm / Xen 4.0.1 with 2.6.32.18/21 pvops Kernel?
From: "Jan Beulich" <JBeulich@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 15 Sep 2010 09:15:15 +0100
Cc: xen-devel <xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, jeremy <jeremy@xxxxxxxx>, "yunhong.jiang" <yunhong.jiang@xxxxxxxxx>, "winston.l.wang" <winston.l.wang@xxxxxxxxx>, "gang.wei" <gang.wei@xxxxxxxxx>
Delivery-date: Wed, 15 Sep 2010 01:15:35 -0700
Envelope-to: www-data@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <H000006700083d34.1284535373.uhura.space.zz@MHS>
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>
References: <789F9655DD1B8F43B48D77C5D30659732A3654AF@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <H000006700083d34.1284535373.uhura.space.zz@MHS>
Sender: xen-devel-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>> On 15.09.10 at 09:22, "Carsten Schiers" <carsten@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> As I am not such an expert (although through this experience, I now know 
> much more about ACPI),
> can we now assume that the BIOS is ok? It's because I mailed the Asrock 
> guys already and either
> need to give them the latest info, or I would explain them everything is 
> settled.

Based on even the native kernel complaining (just not dying) the
BIOS certainly isn't fully correct. This particularly includes (but isn't
necessarily limited to)

        Name (CSDT, Package (0x18)
        {
            "CPU0CST ", 
            0x80000000, 
            0x80000000, 
            "CPU1CST ", 
            0x80000000, 
            0x80000000, 
            "CPU2CST ", 
            0x80000000, 
            0x80000000, 
            "CPU3CST ", 
            0x80000000, 
            0x80000000, 
            "CPU4CST ", 
            0x80000000, 
            0x80000000, 
            "CPU5CST ", 
            0x80000000, 
            0x80000000, 
            "CPU6CST ", 
            0x80000000, 
            0x80000000, 
            "CPU7CST ", 
            0x80000000, 
            0x80000000
        })

listing invalid addressed for *all* CPUs (not just the ones actually
not present). Another point is that currently you may be luck in that
they may not get evaluated. If they can guarantee that this will
never get accessed, imo they should just leave it (and the dead
access) out.

Jan


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

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>