Xen project Mailing List

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

To: Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@xxxxxxxxxx>, Bruce Edge <bruce.edge@xxxxxxxxx>

From: Boris Derzhavets <bderzhavets@xxxxxxxxx>

Date: Thu, 11 Nov 2010 10:09:40 -0800 (PST)

Cc: Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@xxxxxxxx>, "xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "ian.campbell@xxxxxxxxxx" <ian.campbell@xxxxxxxxxx>, Stefano Stabellini <stefano.stabellini@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>

Delivery-date: Thu, 11 Nov 2010 10:10:26 -0800

Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=yahoo.com; h=Message-ID:X-YMail-OSG:Received:X-Mailer:Date:From:Subject:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=b6yuCmreTX4lqwOWm8X9DFZXayO7BovBXM7fJUN844ReS5PmcdLw7SD3OWwtcB3Az2jb3uPkHKxi47jT6D0c8uFPK3nheNb5/O04AcX9N9gOqyUBddZYHJ2gA7ZCQk+rsANCW62Hz2dVEfOaBMRmMf9hq/c5BstdFSpLUaeiL8M=;

List-id: Xen developer discussion <xen-devel.lists.xensource.com>

Bruce,

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

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