[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] Re: [Xen-devel] x86/AMD: Nested hvm crashes in 4.3
On 27/06/13 11:24, Suravee Suthikulpanit wrote: > On 6/27/2013 5:08 AM, Jan Beulich wrote: >>>>> On 27.06.13 at 11:20, Suravee Suthikulpanit >>>>> <suravee.suthikulpanit@xxxxxxx> wrote: >>> On 6/27/2013 3:22 AM, Jan Beulich wrote: >>>>>>> On 27.06.13 at 02:24, Suravee Suthikulanit >>>>>>> <suravee.suthikulpanit@xxxxxxx> wrote: >>>>> I have found an issue in where the system crash right when I start >>>>> another HVM guest inside an HVM guest. I have traced back to the >>>>> patch >>>>> which the issue started. >>>>> >>>>> commit f1bde87fc08ce8c818a1640a8fe4765d48923091 >>>>> Author: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@xxxxxxxx> >>>>> Date: Fri Feb 8 11:06:04 2013 +0100 >>>>> >>>>> x86: debugging code for testing 16Tb support on smaller >>>>> memory systems >>>>> >>>>> Signed-off-by: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@xxxxxxxx> >>>>> Acked-by: Keir Fraser <keir@xxxxxxx> >>>> We had issues exposed by this patch before, but any such issue >>>> would just have been masked before that patch (and would >>>> surface on a system with more than 5Tb of memory anyway). >>> The system I am having the issue has 48GB of memory. >> Which is why you're seeing the problem only with the debugging >> code enabled. > Is the "debugging" enabled by default? I didn't specify any debug > when building. > How can I check and disable debugging? > >> (And of course I didn't really expect you to have >> tried this on a huge memory system - they're just too rare still >> for this to be likely.) >> >>>> So it is very unlikely for the patch itself to be at fault. >>> I have traced the issue and found that the system crashing starts >>> from this >>> commit id and onward. >>> (i.e. The system does not crash with commit id >>> ed759d20249197cf87b338ff0ed328052ca3b8e7) >>> So, I am still believe that this patch has somehow triggered the issue. >> As said - I'm pretty certain this merely unmasked an already >> lurking issue. > I'm not quite sure what you meant here. Are you saying that this > "crashing" is a known issue? > >> And that's what the purpose of that patch is. > This patch is crashing the system. What do you mean by "And that's > what the purpose of that patch is"? > > Suravee >> >> Jan >> >> > > It means that this patch is exposing a latent bug where the nested hvm code is already wrong. It will be something in the nested hvm code which is not using map_domain_page() when it really should be. Without posting a stack trace, there is nothing we can do to help narrow down the issue. ~Andrew > > _______________________________________________ > Xen-devel mailing list > Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx > http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
|
Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our |