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] [xen-unstable bisection] complete test-amd64-i386-rhel6h

To: <xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Laszlo Ersek <lersek@xxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] [xen-unstable bisection] complete test-amd64-i386-rhel6hvm-intel
From: Ian Jackson <Ian.Jackson@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 1 Sep 2011 17:26:15 +0100
Cc: keir@xxxxxxx, stefano.stabellini@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Delivery-date: Thu, 01 Sep 2011 09:27:06 -0700
Envelope-to: www-data@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <E1Qz9bA-0008S0-Hh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
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>
Newsgroups: chiark.mail.xen.devel
References: <E1Qz9bA-0008S0-Hh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sender: xen-devel-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xen.org writes ("[Xen-devel] [xen-unstable bisection] complete 
test-amd64-i386-rhel6hvm-intel"):
> branch xen-unstable
> xen branch xen-unstable
> job test-amd64-i386-rhel6hvm-intel
> test xen-install
> 
> Tree: linux git://git.eu.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/jeremy/xen.git
> Tree: qemu git://hg.uk.xensource.com/HG/qemu-xen-unstable.git
> Tree: xen http://hg.uk.xensource.com/xen-unstable.hg
> 
> *** Found and reproduced problem changeset ***
> 
>   Bug is in tree:  xen http://hg.uk.xensource.com/xen-unstable.hg
>   Bug introduced:  bb9b81008733
>   Bug not present: d54cfae72cd1
> 
> 
>   changeset:   23802:bb9b81008733
>   user:        Laszlo Ersek <lersek@xxxxxxxxxx>
>   date:        Wed Aug 31 15:16:14 2011 +0100
>       
>       x86: Increase the default NR_CPUS to 256
>       
>       Changeset 21012:ef845a385014 bumped the default to 128 about one and a
>       half years ago. Increase it now to 256, as systems with eg. 160
>       logical CPUs are becoming (have become) common.
>       
>       Signed-off-by: Laszlo Ersek <lersek@xxxxxxxxxx>

My bisector is pretty reliable nowadays.  Looking at the revision
graph it tested before/after/before/after/before/after, ie three times
each on the same host.

This change looks innocuous enough TBH.  Is there any way this change
could have broken a PV-on-HVM guest ?  Note that RHEL6, which is what
this is testing, seems to generally be full of bugs.

If the problem is indeed a bug in the current RHEL6 then I will add
this test to the "do not care" list.

Ian.

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