Re: [Xen-devel] Re: pvops kernel branches - 2.6.36 options, stable/next/etc?

[Boris Derzhavets <bderzhavets@xxxxxxxxx>]

> Of course it doesn't have pci passthrough as it's not available in that kernel

I believe, this feature (per Konrad)  is not core reason of crash .37-rc1

Boris.


--- On Thu, 11/11/10, Bruce Edge <bruce.edge@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

From: Bruce Edge <bruce.edge@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] Re: pvops kernel branches - 2.6.36 options, stable/next/etc?
To: "Boris Derzhavets" <bderzhavets@xxxxxxxxx>
Cc: "Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk" <konrad.wilk@xxxxxxxxxx>, "Jeremy Fitzhardinge" <jeremy@xxxxxxxx>, "xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "ian.campbell@xxxxxxxxxx" <ian.campbell@xxxxxxxxxx>, "Stefano Stabellini" <stefano.stabellini@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thursday, November 11, 2010, 1:32 PM

On Thu, Nov 11, 2010 at 10:09 AM, Boris Derzhavets <bderzhavets@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Bruce,

 I believe , Konrad wants us to test vanilla 2.6.36(5)(4) for the issue with NFS folder.

I built a mainline 2.6.36 and it's not crashing with the same config.
Of course it doesn't have pci passthrough as it's not available in that kernel.

So that puts it in the 36 -> 37-rc1 region. Is there any reason to test anything before 2.6.36?

I'll reboot it a few more times to confirm that it's stable.

-Bruce

Boris


--- On Thu, 11/11/10, Bruce Edge <bruce.edge@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

From: Bruce Edge <bruce.edge@xxxxxxxxx>

Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] Re: pvops kernel branches - 2.6.36 options, stable/next/etc?

To: "Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk" <konrad.wilk@xxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: "Jeremy Fitzhardinge" <jeremy@xxxxxxxx>, "xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "ian.campbell@xxxxxxxxxx" <ian.campbell@xxxxxxxxxx>, "Stefano Stabellini" <stefano.stabellini@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thursday, November 11, 2010, 11:48 AM

On Nov 11, 2010, at 8:25 AM, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

>>> Well, I am working on a PCI E820 hole thingie,
>>
>>
>> If this for the 4GB mem limit on pvops domUs?
>
> Yup. I got it to boot nicely yesterday too. The patches are in
> devel/e820-hole, _but_ you need patches for the toolstack. Those
> aren't ready yet (they are quite skanky right now).

Fantastic. I'm looking forward to this.
>
>>> Hmm, so the difference between that and the upstream is the PVonHVM and
>>> the initial domain 0 support (all in Stefano's tree).
>>>
>>
>> I tried disabling the  CONFIG_XEN_PVHVM with no change. (see the "2.6.37-rc1
>> mainline domU - BUG: unable to handle kernel paging request" thread.
>> Is that sufficient to eliminate the PnonHVM from the equation?
>
> Yes should be. And based on your output it doesn't seem to make much difference.
>
> I think bisecting the code and just running as DomU PV (without PCI passthrough)
> and trying different kernels: 2.6.36, 2.6.35, 2.6.34 and seeing if you get the
> same or similar hang can help us a bit. If you can get hold of Boris you could
> both coordinate this?

Any particular pvops branch, or mainline Linux?

-Bruce
>
> I've got to fix this AMD bootup hang, but once I am done I can switch over to this,
> unless somebody else picks it up (Jeremy, Stefano, Ian?)

_______________________________________________
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

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