Re: [Xen-devel] [x86/time] 03fa63cc96: ACPI_Error:Table[DMAR]is_not_invalidated_during_early_boot_stage(#/tbxface -#)

[Dou Liyang <douly.fnst@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi xiaolong,

Really thanks for your testing.

At 07/07/2017 09:54 AM, Ye Xiaolong wrote:
> On 07/06, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > On Thu, 6 Jul 2017, kernel test robot wrote:
> >
> > > commit: 03fa63cc96ab35592e0a7d522b8edbc1e6b02d22 ("x86/time: Initialize interrupt 
> > > mode behind timer init")
> > > +----------------+------------+------------+
> > > |                | 43436935b7 | 03fa63cc96 |
> > > +----------------+------------+------------+
> > > | boot_successes | 0          | 4          |
> > > +----------------+------------+------------+
> > So 03fa63cc96 makes the box boot again. I'm confused as usual by the
> > output of this tool.,
> >
> > > kern  :info  : [    0.005000] tsc: Fast TSC calibration using PIT
> > > kern  :info  : [    0.006000] tsc: Detected 2195.020 MHz processor
> > > kern  :info  : [    0.007000] Calibrating delay loop (skipped), value 
> > > calculated using timer frequency.. 4390.04 BogoMIPS (lpj=2195020)
> > > kern  :info  : [    0.008001] pid_max: default: 90112 minimum: 704
> > > kern  :info  : [    0.009037] ACPI: Core revision 20170303
> > > kern  :err   : [    0.010002] ACPI Error: Table [DMAR] is not invalidated 
> > > during early boot stage (20170303/tbxface-193)
> > Sure we have a error message here, but compared to what? Compared to
> > something which does not boot at all?
> Sorry for the confusion, here commit 43436935b7 boot failed due to OOM which
> happened at the late stage of kernel boot while the ACPI error showed at the
> early boot stage for commit 03fa63cc96 and it didn't appear in 43436935b7's
> dmesg.
let's make the problem clearly firstly:

1) Commit 43436935b7 ("x86/xen: Bypass intr mode setup in enlighten_pv
system") made kernel boot failed, which caused by OOM.

2) Commit 03fa63cc96 ("x86/time: Initialize interrupt mode behind timer 
init") can make the kernel boot success again, but with an ACPI error 
happened.
And both *1* and *2* used the same configuration showed in the
attachment.

Does anything I missed?

Thanks,

        dou.

> Thanks,
> Xiaolong
>
> > Thanks,
> >
> >         tglx


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