2018-06-01 17:38 GMT+08:00 Harry Schmalzbauer <free...@omnilan.de>: > Am 15.11.2017 um 15:19 schrieb Harry Schmalzbauer: > >> Bezüglich Peter Grehan's Nachricht vom 03.01.2017 20:36 (localtime): >> >>> Hi Harry, >>> >>> trying to use bhyve(8) with virtio-blk and Windows guest results in core >>>> dump: >>>> Assertion failed: (n >= 2 && n <= BLOCKIF_IOV_MAX + 2), function >>>> pci_vtblk_proc, file usr.sbin/bhyve/pci_virtio_block.c, line >>>> 216. >>>> Abort trap (core dumped) >>>> >>>> Unfortunately this is on a production-test machine which lacks gdb etc. >>>> Will try to reproduce on antoher machine, but maybe someone already >>>> knows that problem? >>>> >>> virtio-blk isn't currently supported with Windows guests. You'll need >>> to use ahci-hd for now. >>> >>> However, I do have a fix that can hopefully be committed shortly. >>> >> … >> >> Mising in another reply: >> >> Wiadomość napisana przez Harry Schmalzbauer <free...@omnilan.de >>>> <mailto:free...@omnilan.de>> w dniu 03.01.2017, o godz. 20:33: >>>> >>> … >> >>> Will try to reproduce on antoher machine, but maybe someone already >>>> knows that problem? >>>> >>> I've seen that problem and fixed it, will upstream the patch later today. >>> >>> JFYI, fixing >>> commit: >>> >> https://github.com/freenas/os/commit/0e4d6e1826f8aa7041cbeeb >> 4365c797eeec5c5f4 >> >> Thanks Jakub for the info. >> >> I can confirm that increasing BLOCKIF_IOV_MAX from 33 to 128, like the >> diff shows, solved the problem for me. >> I've successfully done some performace tests on Windows7 (virtio-blk vs. >> ahci,hd:) and also migrated one Server 2012R2 to bhyve using virtio-blk. >> >> Peter, is your mentioned fix different from just increasing >> BLOCKIF_IOV_MAX? >> If not, would you commit that please? >> > > I hope that I don't bug people knowing better, but this simple diff makes > virtio-blk usable for Windows 7. > Is there any reason not to commit? >
There were some discussion[0] about this possible fix, but seems the fix is not that so simple. I got distracted with other things and I didn't further investigated this issue. Maybe Peter has something news about this issue. [0] https://reviews.freebsd.org/D10581 Best, > > Index: src/usr.sbin/bhyve/block_if.h > =================================================================== > --- usr.sbin/bhyve/block_if.h (Revision 325745) > +++ usr.sbin/bhyve/block_if.h (Arbeitskopie) > @@ -39,7 +39,7 @@ > #include <sys/uio.h> > #include <sys/unistd.h> > > -#define BLOCKIF_IOV_MAX 33 /* not practical to be > IOV_MAX */ > +#define BLOCKIF_IOV_MAX 128 /* not practical to be > IOV_MAX */ > > struct blockif_req { > struct iovec br_iov[BLOCKIF_IOV_MAX]; > > > Thanks, > > -harry > _______________________________________________ > freebsd-virtualization@freebsd.org mailing list > https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-virtualization > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-virtualization-unsubs > cr...@freebsd.org" > -- -- Marcelo Araujo (__)ara...@freebsd.org \\\'',)http://www.FreeBSD.org <http://www.freebsd.org/> \/ \ ^ Power To Server. .\. /_) _______________________________________________ freebsd-virtualization@freebsd.org mailing list https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-virtualization To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-virtualization-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
