Re: [Xen-devel] Error booting Xen

[Harmandeep Kaur <write.harmandeep@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 11:58 PM, Dario Faggioli
<dario.faggioli@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Tue, 2016-01-26 at 23:32 +0530, Harmandeep Kaur wrote:
>> Last time, I did absolutely nothing. System was idle
>> and it crashed just after the login. Now, I booted the
>> system again and this time, there is no reset. But,
>> performance of the system is very slow. Browser
>> (Mozilla Firefox) freezes a lot. Also, before applying
>> patches, when I used to disabe xsave it resulted in
>> same kind of performance issues.
>>
> Mmm... are you sure the performance is actually affected by "xsave=0",
> and/or by Jan's patch? It's hard to check, as without at least one of
> them the box does not boot, but I don't think the things (e.g., Firefox
> freezing or not starting) are necessarily related.
>
> In particular, you have in your Xen boot parameters list, this item:
>
>  "dom0_mem=1024M,max:1024M"
>
> This means that, in dom0, you will "only" have 1GB of RAM available.
> And if you just login after boot and start Firefox, dom0 is where
> Firefox is going to be running... and 1G, that Firefox will have to
> share with the rest of Linux running as dom0, may be too few RAM for
> it. And in fact, in your last log, we see this (from dom0, not from
> Xen!):
>
> [  851.644443] Out of memory: Kill process 1945 (firefox) score 325 or 
> sacrifice child
> [  851.644461] Killed process 1945 (firefox) total-vm:1228008kB, 
> anon-rss:305536kB, file-rss:0kB
>
> If you want to run a graphical environment on that test box, and browse
> with Firefox, then you should increase the amount of RAM you allow dom0
> to use. When I suggested you to use 1024, I was assuming (given how
> your work environment is setup) you were not going to do any such
> thing.
>
Actually I didn't notice this performance issue before this xsave
bug, maybe we added this line later on. Anyways I can now
check this by increasing the memory.

>> And the following
>> is still present in the log.
>>
>> (XEN) traps.c:3290: GPF (0000): ffff82d0801c1cea -> ffff82d080252e5c
>> (XEN) d1v1 fault#1: mxcsr=00001f80
>> (XEN) d1v1 xs=0000000000000003 xc=8000000000000000
>> (XEN) d1v1 r0=0000000000000000 r1=0000000000000000
>> (XEN) d1v1 r2=0000000000000000 r3=0000000000000000
>> (XEN) d1v1 r4=0000000000000000 r5=0000000000000000
>> (XEN) traps.c:3290: GPF (0000): ffff82d0801c1cea -> ffff82d080252e5c
>> (XEN) d1v1 fault#2: mxcsr=00001f80
>> (XEN) d1v1 xs=0000000000000000 xc=0000000000000000
>> (XEN) d1v1 r0=0000000000000000 r1=0000000000000000
>> (XEN) d1v1 r2=0000000000000000 r3=0000000000000000
>> (XEN) d1v1 r4=0000000000000000 r5=0000000000000000
>>
> Mmm... and this is with all Jan's patches applied?

Yes, all three patches applied.

> So, just to make sure we understand each others, you're saying that,
> again with all patches applied, and with you not doing anything
> significantly different between a) and b) below, the system either:
>
>  a) crashes right after login, like this: http://paste2.org/KEAetMHb
>
>  b) does not crash (you're even able to try starting Firefox), but Xen
>     produces the following output: http://paste2.org/C8WpyKOg
>
> Is this correct?

Yes. And I tried to boot several times and around 70-80% of
times system crashes right after the login as in case 'a'.

Regards,
Harmandeep

> Regards,
> Dario
> --
> <<This happens because I choose it to happen!>> (Raistlin Majere)
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> Dario Faggioli, Ph.D, http://about.me/dario.faggioli
> Senior Software Engineer, Citrix Systems R&D Ltd., Cambridge (UK)
>

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel