Re: [Xen-devel] Re: blocking Xen 3.X production use: soft lockup bugs

[Steve Traugott <stevegt@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Thu, Aug 03, 2006 at 12:36:35AM +0100, Ian Pratt wrote:
> Using 'xm list', is the guest burning CPU? 

I was watching for that, haven't spotted any significant CPU usage
yet; seems to be hung rather than spinning.

> What about dom0?

That I haven't been watching for.  ;-)  Will do.

> The soft lockup messages appear to be benign in that the domain seems to
> be continuing quite happily after printing them -- its quite possible
> that the system was sufficiently busy that the domain VCPU just didn't
> get scheduled for a while, triggering the warning message. Are you sure
> they're actually related to the more serious problem you're
> experiencing? 

I can't prove that the network-related soft lockups I'm seeing on the
x330's are the same soft lockups related to filesystem damage we saw
on the Netengines -- we stopped using Netengines for Xen 3 when we hit
that (they run Xen 2 fine).  Now that I know what to look for, I'll go
back and re-create the Xen 3 environment on the Netengines so I can
reproduce the problem there.

> Have you tried using -unstable and hence xen's new scheduler? This is
> less likely to provoke soft lockup false alarms.

Haven't tried unstable yet, since this is for the production
infrastructure for my family's business; am in the process of
rebuilding with testing changeset 9762 though.  (is that really tip?
hg log says Jun 29th for that changeset, even after a pull...)

Thanks again,

Steve

-- 
Stephen G. Traugott  (KG6HDQ)
UNIX/Linux Infrastructure Architect, TerraLuna LLC
stevegt@xxxxxxxxxxxxx 
http://www.stevegt.com -- http://Infrastructures.Org

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