[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] Re: [Xen-devel] crash in is_xen_swiotlb_buffer
On Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 10:34:38PM +0000, Goncalo Gomes wrote: > On Tue, 13 Mar 2012, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote: > > > On Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 07:09:17PM +0000, Goncalo Gomes wrote: > > > On Tue, 13 Mar 2012, Goncalo Gomes wrote: > > > > > > > On Tue, 13 Mar 2012, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote: > > > > > > > > > > (XEN) mm.c:943:d0 Attempt to map superpage without allowsuperpage > > > > > > flag in hypervisor > > > > > > [ 0.000000] ------------[ cut here ]------------ > > > > > > [ 0.000000] WARNING: at arch/x86/xen/multicalls.c:129 > > > > > > xen_mc_issue+0x34/0x62() > > > > > > [ 0.000000] Hardware name: PowerEdge R310 > > > > > > [ 0.000000] Modules linked in: > > > > > > [ 0.000000] Pid: 0, comm: swapper Not tainted 3.2.9 #9 > > > > > > [ 0.000000] Call Trace: > > > > > > [ 0.000000] [<c104236b>] ? warn_slowpath_common+0x6a/0x7b > > > > > > [ 0.000000] [<c1005442>] ? xen_mc_issue+0x34/0x62 > > > > > > [ 0.000000] [<c1042389>] ? warn_slowpath_null+0xd/0x10 > > > > > > [ 0.000000] [<c1005442>] ? xen_mc_issue+0x34/0x62 > > > > > > [ 0.000000] [<c1005f3b>] ? xen_set_pmd_hyper+0x3c/0x42 > > > > > > [ 0.000000] [<c102edbe>] ? set_pmd_pfn+0xde/0xf9 > > > > > > [ 0.000000] [<c168b652>] ? init_alloc_remap+0x1b3/0x216 > > > > > > [ 0.000000] [<c168aa48>] ? setup_node_data+0x4c/0x22f > > > > > > [ 0.000000] [<c168b203>] ? T.744+0x290/0x2c2 > > > > > > [ 0.000000] [<c168b2ac>] ? T.743+0x77/0x1a1 > > > > > > [ 0.000000] [<c1025290>] ? default_get_apic_id+0x14/0x33 > > > > > > [ 0.000000] [<c168b3ed>] ? initmem_init+0x5/0xb7 > > > > > > [ 0.000000] [<c167cef4>] ? setup_arch+0x5bf/0x694 > > > > > > [ 0.000000] [<c100b840>] ? __spin_time_accum+0x26/0x36 > > > > > > [ 0.000000] [<c167852c>] ? start_kernel+0x81/0x34d > > > > > > [ 0.000000] [<c167a258>] ? xen_start_kernel+0x554/0x55b > > > > > > [ 0.000000] ---[ end trace 4eaa2a86a8e2da22 ]--- > > > > > > > > > > So this is first time I am seeing this. It looks like something in > > > > > 3.2 -> 3.2.9 > > > > > is causing this. Can you do one more check - and just try booting the > > > > > 3.2 virgin > > > > > and seeing how it works? > > > > > > > > Sure, I'll try it once I have a chance. > > > > > > With 3.2.0 + 4.1.2, all it took was booting domain0 > > > > I am really perplexed. I just booted 4.1.2 + 3.2.9 and 3.2.0 and I had no > > trouble. > > Can you send me your .config file please? > > I can, see the attached config file1 > > > Oh wait, I am building 64-bit, you are doing 32-bit. Is your hypervisor > > 32-bit or > > 64-bit? > > It is 32bit, as is the remaining setup. Is this not a valid > configuration? It is. I just did a compile as well with 32-bit and I am not seeing the issues.. Must be something with the .config. _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
|
Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our |