Re: [Xen-users] pvhvm on debian

[Ian Campbell <Ian.Campbell@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On Mon, 2012-09-10 at 13:13 +0100, chris wrote:
> So I found the drivers, are you saying these are not pvhvm drivers?

Strictly speaking no, these are the 3rd party modules irefered to
earlier.
> 
> 
> # find /lib/modules/2.6.18-194.3.1.el5/ | grep xen
> /lib/modules/2.6.18-194.3.1.el5/kernel/drivers/net/netxen
> /lib/modules/2.6.18-194.3.1.el5/kernel/drivers/net/netxen/netxen_nic.ko
> /lib/modules/2.6.18-194.3.1.el5/kernel/drivers/xenpv_hvm
> /lib/modules/2.6.18-194.3.1.el5/kernel/drivers/xenpv_hvm/platform-pci
> /lib/modules/2.6.18-194.3.1.el5/kernel/drivers/xenpv_hvm/platform-pci/xen-platform-pci.ko
> /lib/modules/2.6.18-194.3.1.el5/kernel/drivers/xenpv_hvm/netfront
> /lib/modules/2.6.18-194.3.1.el5/kernel/drivers/xenpv_hvm/netfront/xen-vnif.ko
> /lib/modules/2.6.18-194.3.1.el5/kernel/drivers/xenpv_hvm/blkfront
> /lib/modules/2.6.18-194.3.1.el5/kernel/drivers/xenpv_hvm/blkfront/xen-vbd.ko
> /lib/modules/2.6.18-194.3.1.el5/kernel/drivers/xenpv_hvm/balloon
> /lib/modules/2.6.18-194.3.1.el5/kernel/drivers/xenpv_hvm/balloon/xen-balloon.ko
> 
> 
> I can't find any packages that look like a seperate package for the
> drivers only, I have a feeling its integrated with the kernel package

I suspect RH have simply incorporated them into their kernel build
directly for convenience (they also incorporate the hypervisor into the
kenrel package)

> [root@baraka ~]# rpm -qa | grep -i xen
> [root@baraka ~]# rpm -qa | grep -i pv
> iptables-ipv6-1.3.5-5.3.el5_4.1
> [root@baraka ~]# rpm -qa | grep -i hvm
> 
> 
> Any idea how can I track down which drivers it is being used?
> 
> 
> chris
> 
> On Mon, Sep 10, 2012 at 8:00 AM, chris <tknchris@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>         Ian, 
>         
>         
>         You are awesome! I figured it out by looking at console logs.
>         The nonworking domU had this in its console:
>         
>         
>         Detected Xen platform device but not Xen VMM? (sig Microsoft
>         Hv, eax 40000006)
>         xen-platform-pci: probe of 0000:00:03.0 failed with error -22
>         
>         
>         The mention of hyperv reminded me back when I had to add
>         viridian=1 in order to avoid bluescreens in certain newer
>         versions of windows, and sure enough the nonworking centos
>         domU had viridian=1
>         After removing/disabling this option the Xen pv drivers come
>         up properly.
>         
>         
>         Just for clarification on the centos side though, in regard to
>         your guest about if I installed any additional standalone PV
>         drivers, the answer is no. The only reason I referred to it as
>         PVHVM was I assumed that maybe pvhvm had become mainline and
>         the kernel centos was using had these features now. 
>         
>         
>         Anyway its all working now and its good to know it works in
>         wheezy and I can continue to move towards that in production.
>         
>         
>         Thanks for all your time and help
>         chris
>         
>         On Mon, Sep 10, 2012 at 5:02 AM, Ian Campbell
>         <Ian.Campbell@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>                 On Sun, 2012-09-09 at 21:23 +0100, chris wrote:
>                 > So as you can see the domU is identical kernel in
>                 both cases however
>                 > when the domU is running on the wheezy dom0 even
>                 despite that the
>                 > platform pci device appears exactly the same in
>                 lspci
>                 
>                 
>                 Is the contents of the initrd identical in both cases?
>                 Specifically do
>                 they both contain the same set of kernel modules?
>                 
>                 Note that CentOS does not strictly speaking contain
>                 "PVHVM", which is a
>                 more recent upstream development. What you have here
>                 is the PV drivers
>                 add on driver from the unmodified_drivers. Did these
>                 drivers ship with
>                 CentOS or did you get them from elsewhere? Do you have
>                 the source for
>                 them?
>                 
>                 The difference is that PVHVM is part of the kernel
>                 itself and are
>                 tightly integrated, while the unmodified_drivers are a
>                 set of drivers
>                 used as an "add-on" pack for various existing OSes
>                 (similar in principal
>                 to how e.g. the Windows drivers are supplied for
>                 Windows). The main
>                 differences in practice will be at setup and
>                 initialisation time, which
>                 of course is where things appear to be going wrong for
>                 you.
>                 
>                 I think this highlights why it is important to always
>                 give all the
>                 precise details in a bug report, this is the first
>                 time CentOS has been
>                 mentioned at all so I think I can be forgiven for
>                 assuming you were
>                 running Debian PVHVM in the guest too (which is what I
>                 spent time
>                 reproducing).
>                 
>                 > I've attached the configs and logs that you asked
>                 for
>                 
>                 
>                 I asked for guest console logs. The guest console logs
>                 are where the
>                 guest decisions about PVHVM drivers will be logged, if
>                 anywhere.
>                 
>                 sektor-qemu.txt and baraka-qemu.txt are identical, but
>                 they both contain
>                 references to "baraka" which should surely be "sektor"
>                 in the at least
>                 one place (e.g. the disk path) for that VM.
>                 
>                 Your vm configs show the name has changed in the disk
>                 path so I don't
>                 see why it isn't different in the logs too. re you
>                 sure these are the
>                 actual logs from real runs of the guest?
>                 
>                 > Any ideas how to debug further? The difference
>                 between the working
>                 > scenario and nonworking is the dom0 distro (squeeze
>                 vs wheezy), dom0
>                 > kernel and dom0 hypervisor
>                 > Testing with both scenario's was done with the exact
>                 same domU so I
>                 > cant see how it could be a domU issue.
>                 
>                 
>                 Comparing your guest configs shows that they aren't
>                 actual quite
>                 identical though, for reasons other than the different
>                 names.
>                 
>                 One has apic=1 then other doesn't, I'm not sure what
>                 the default is, and
>                 also one names its vif with vifname and the other
>                 doesn't.
>                 
>                 Perhaps these don't matter but it suggests that you
>                 need to double check
>                 your assumption that these VMs are "identical".
>                 
>                 Ian.
>                 
>                 
>                 
>         
>         
> 



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