Re: [Xen-ia64-devel] [Test Report] Xen/IPF Unstable CS#18860 Status --- Dom0 Crash

[Isaku Yamahata <yamahata@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Tue, Dec 09, 2008 at 05:56:25PM +0800, You, Yongkang wrote:
> On Monday, December 08, 2008 2:10 PM, "Isaku Yamahata" wrote:
> 
> > On Mon, Dec 08, 2008 at 01:52:38PM +0800, Zhang, Jingke wrote:
> >> Isaku Yamahata wrote:
> >>> On Mon, Dec 08, 2008 at 11:31:15AM +0800, Zhang, Jingke wrote:
> >>>> Hi Isaku,
> >>>>     We re-get the detail information from serial port, please see
> >>>> below. Two comments add:
> >>> 
> >>> Thank you.
> >>> 
> >>> 
> >>>>     1. We can be sure the Cset#18832 works well on the same tiger4
> >>>> machine. But we did not do regression test between 18832 and this
> >>>> 18860. 
> >>>>     2. It is strange that on another Tiger4 box, dom0 will NOT
> >>>> crash. Do you have any idea from the serial log? Thanks!
> >>> 
> >>> I haven't hit this crash. And Kuwamura-san's test seems that
> >>> he haven't hit it either. Kuwamura-san, is it correct?
> >>> Hmm... it seems to depend on hw configuration?
> >>> I'm inclined to suspect masking/unmasking interruption race.
> >>> event channel issues? But that's just only my very vague guess.
> >>> 
> >>> The difference between 18832 and 18860 means the merging
> >>> xen-unstable into xen-ia64-unstable. Looking the log, I suspect
> >>> linux-2.6.18-xen instead of xen. 
> >>> Could you provide the linux c/s which corresponds to 18832 and
> >>> 18860? 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> Hi Isaku,
> >>     Yes, some of our machines do not crash. I am afraid there may be
> >>     some potential issue. By testing 18832, we use linux#742. While
> >> 18860 uses linux#753. Thanks! 
> > 
> > Thank you. Taking rough look at them those change sets doesn't
> > seem culprit.
> > I agree with you that this may indicate some potential bugs...
> 
> Hi All,
> 
> This bug is stably reproduced, if providing "dom0_mem=2048M" in append 
> option. And if setting dom0_mem to 1024M or 4096M, the crashing doesn't 
> happen. 
> 
> We tried #18869 Xen + #742 Dom0, system is okay. So the problem might be in 
> Linux tree between #742~#753

I tried 2048M (and other value), but I wasn't reproduce it.
Hmm, does it reproduce with "dom0_mem=2048M" on all boxes which you tested?

thanks,
-- 
yamahata

_______________________________________________
Xen-ia64-devel mailing list
Xen-ia64-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-ia64-devel