AW: Re: [Xen-devel] Xen BUG in mm / Xen 4.0.1 with 2.6.32.18/21 pvops Kernel?

["Carsten Schiers" <carsten@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi,

no change when I set e.g. to dom0_mem=3000M (see below and in log. In 
log, I also tried 196M, same result).

> you'd have to look at (or
> provide) your DSDT and SSDT(s) to see where this reference comes
> from.

Sorry, my OS knowledge is on Andrew's Minix book niveau: how to provide? 


BR,
Carsten.
 
[    3.830424] ACPI: Power Button [PWRF]
[    3.897249] ACPI: SSDT 00000000bbfb00b0 00235 (v01 DpgPmm  P001Ist 
00000011 INTL 20051117)
[    3.947683] ACPI: SSDT 00000000bbfb02f0 00235 (v01 DpgPmm  P002Ist 
00000012 INTL 20051117)
(XEN) mm.c:860:d0 Error getting mfn 80000 (pfn 7c9ec) from L1 entry 
8000000080000473 for l1e_owner=0, pg_owner=32753
[    3.998293] BUG: unable to handle kernel paging request at 
ffffc90000062000
[    3.998293] IP: [<ffffffff81258492>] 
acpi_ex_system_memory_space_handler+0x16d/0x1df
[    3.998293] PGD bb80d067 PUD bb80e067 PMD bb80f067 PTE 0
[    3.998293] Oops: 0000 [#1] SMP 
[    3.998293] last sysfs file: 
[    3.998293] CPU 0 
[    3.998293] Modules linked in:
[    3.998293] Pid: 1, comm: swapper Not tainted 2.6.32.21 #1 To Be 
Filled By O.E.M.
[    3.998293] RIP: e030:[<ffffffff81258492>]  [<ffffffff81258492>] 
acpi_ex_system_memory_space_handler+0x16d/0x1df
[    3.998293] RSP: e02b:ffff8800bb871970  EFLAGS: 00010246
[    3.998293] RAX: ffffc90000062000 RBX: ffff8800bb89c040 RCX: 
0000000000000000
[    3.998293] RDX: ffff880002de90a0 RSI: 0000000000000001 RDI: 
ffffffff8100f22f
[    3.998293] RBP: ffff8800bb8719b0 R08: ffffffff8169e270 R09: 
0000000000001000
[    3.998293] R10: dead000000100100 R11: ffffffff8100f22f R12: 
ffffc90000062000
[    3.998293] R13: 0000000000000000 R14: 0000000000000008 R15: 
ffff8800bb871a68
[    3.998293] FS:  0000000000000000(0000) GS:ffff880002dde000(0000) 
knlGS:0000000000000000
[    3.998293] CS:  e033 DS: 0000 ES: 0000 CR0: 000000008005003b
[    3.998293] CR2: ffffc90000062000 CR3: 0000000001001000 CR4: 
0000000000000660
[    3.998293] DR0: 0000000000000000 DR1: 0000000000000000 DR2: 
0000000000000000
[    3.998293] DR3: 0000000000000000 DR6: 00000000ffff0ff0 DR7: 
0000000000000400
[    3.998293] Process swapper (pid: 1, threadinfo ffff8800bb870000, 
task ffff8800bb868000)
[    3.998293] Stack:
[    3.998293]  ffff8800bb8719a0 0000000000001000 ffff880000000000 
ffff8800ba29b5a0
[    3.998293] <0> ffffffff81258325 ffff8800bb864b88 ffff8800ba29b240 
0000000000000000
[    3.998293] <0> ffff8800bb871a20 ffffffff81250f08 ffff8800ba32b800 
ffffffff81253f53
[    3.998293] Call Trace:
[    3.998293]  [<ffffffff81258325>] ? 
acpi_ex_system_memory_space_handler+0x0/0x1df
[    3.998293]  [<ffffffff81250f08>] 
acpi_ev_address_space_dispatch+0x16b/0x1b9
[    3.998293]  [<ffffffff81253f53>] ? acpi_os_allocate+0x33/0x35


-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: Jan Beulich [mailto:JBeulich@xxxxxxxxxx] 
Gesendet: Mittwoch, 8. September 2010 14:51
An: Carsten Schiers
Cc: xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Betreff: Re: [Xen-devel] Xen BUG in mm / Xen 4.0.1 with 2.6.32.18/21 
pvops Kernel?

>>> On 08.09.10 at 14:15, Carsten Schiers <carsten@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> (XEN) mm.c:860:d0 Error getting mfn 80000 (pfn 5555555555555555) from 
L1 
> entry 8000000080000473 for l1e_owner=0, pg_owner=32753

DOMID_IO seen here generally means that Dom0 tried to map a page
it doesn't own (likely because of your use of dom0_mem=). As the
page really is a RAM one, Xen doesn't allow the access. Given that
this apparently happens in the context of
acpi_ex_system_memory_space_handler() you'd have to look at (or
provide) your DSDT and SSDT(s) to see where this reference comes
from. Very likely this is just a bogus reference, that you get away
with on native, perhaps because this code in ioremap.c

        last_pfn = last_addr >> PAGE_SHIFT;
        for (pfn = phys_addr >> PAGE_SHIFT; pfn <= last_pfn; pfn++) {
                int is_ram = page_is_ram(pfn);

                if (is_ram && pfn_valid(pfn) && 
!PageReserved(pfn_to_page(pfn)))
                        return NULL;
                WARN_ON_ONCE(is_ram);
        }

should result in returning NULL there, while it wouldn't cover the
situation under Xen. (While the code is meaningless under Xen in
its current shape anyway, using dom0_mem= with a value above
2G should get you around the issue, as then PFN 0x80000 would
be considered RAM there too.)

Jan




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