On Mon, 2015-11-30 at 13:59 +0100, Juergen Gross wrote:
> On 30/11/15 13:35, Ian Campbell wrote:
> > FYI attempting to upgrade osstest to use Debian Jessie in the guest
> > seems
> > to have exposed another issue here.
> >
> > http://logs.test-lab.xenproject.org/osstest/logs/65172/test-amd64-amd64
On Mon, 2015-11-30 at 13:16 +, Ian Campbell wrote:
> On Mon, 2015-11-30 at 13:59 +0100, Juergen Gross wrote:
> > On 30/11/15 13:35, Ian Campbell wrote:
> > > FYI attempting to upgrade osstest to use Debian Jessie in the guest
> > > seems
> > > to have exposed another issue here.
> > >
> > > ht
On Mon, 2015-11-30 at 13:41 +, Ian Campbell wrote:
> On Mon, 2015-11-30 at 13:16 +, Ian Campbell wrote:
> > On Mon, 2015-11-30 at 13:59 +0100, Juergen Gross wrote:
> > > On 30/11/15 13:35, Ian Campbell wrote:
> > > > FYI attempting to upgrade osstest to use Debian Jessie in the guest
> > >
On 30/11/15 14:41, Ian Campbell wrote:
> On Mon, 2015-11-30 at 13:16 +, Ian Campbell wrote:
>> On Mon, 2015-11-30 at 13:59 +0100, Juergen Gross wrote:
>>> On 30/11/15 13:35, Ian Campbell wrote:
FYI attempting to upgrade osstest to use Debian Jessie in the guest
seems
to have expo
On Mon, 2015-11-30 at 17:15 +0100, Juergen Gross wrote:
> I'll try to trigger it on my machine and see if I can get some more
> debug information.
Thanks. Below is what I have so far.
It seems to thing mfn=165b81/pfn=4d81 is an L1 PT, when it needs to be a
writeable page due to the reference from
On Mon, 2015-11-30 at 16:25 +, Ian Campbell wrote:
> (d54) Pinning the boot page table pfn 4be3 / mfn 1bfd71/1bfd71
> (d54) pin_table: MFN 1bfd71
> (XEN) mm.c:2417:d54v0 Bad type (saw 1401 != exp 7000)
> for mfn 165b81 (pfn 4d81)
I added a "BUG_ON(*pt_pfn == 0x4d81);"
On 30/11/15 17:56, Ian Campbell wrote:
> On Mon, 2015-11-30 at 16:25 +, Ian Campbell wrote:
>> (d54) Pinning the boot page table pfn 4be3 / mfn 1bfd71/1bfd71
>> (d54) pin_table: MFN 1bfd71
>> (XEN) mm.c:2417:d54v0 Bad type (saw 1401 != exp
>> 7000) for mfn 165b81 (pfn 4
On 01/12/15 08:15, Juergen Gross wrote:
> On 30/11/15 17:56, Ian Campbell wrote:
>> On Mon, 2015-11-30 at 16:25 +, Ian Campbell wrote:
>>> (d54) Pinning the boot page table pfn 4be3 / mfn 1bfd71/1bfd71
>>> (d54) pin_table: MFN 1bfd71
>>> (XEN) mm.c:2417:d54v0 Bad type (saw 1401 != e
On Tue, 2015-12-01 at 08:41 +0100, Juergen Gross wrote:
> >> I'm not quite sure what to make of this, in particular I don't see
> anything
> >> in kexec.c which obviously looks after unmapping the heap or brk
> areas.
> >
> > Nah, this backtrace shows a normal allocation path while
> > uncompressi
On Tue, 2015-12-01 at 08:15 +0100, Juergen Gross wrote:
>
> BTW: up to now I haven't managed to reproduce your problem. My
> domains are just booting fine up to now. Is there a way I could
> get the domain image which is failing? Maybe I could just try
> to use that on my test machine with the sam
On 01/12/15 09:30, Ian Campbell wrote:
> On Tue, 2015-12-01 at 08:41 +0100, Juergen Gross wrote:
I'm not quite sure what to make of this, in particular I don't see
>> anything
in kexec.c which obviously looks after unmapping the heap or brk
>> areas.
>>>
>>> Nah, this backtrace shows a no
On Tue, 2015-12-01 at 09:53 +0100, Juergen Gross wrote:
> On 01/12/15 09:30, Ian Campbell wrote:
> > On Tue, 2015-12-01 at 08:41 +0100, Juergen Gross wrote:
> > > > > I'm not quite sure what to make of this, in particular I don't
> > > > > see
> > > anything
> > > > > in kexec.c which obviously loo
On Tue, 2015-12-01 at 10:01 +, Ian Campbell wrote:
>
> > > I'll try that and your suggested patch below as well once I get to the
> > > office this morning.
> >
> > Thanks.
>
> The BUG_ON doesn't seem to be triggering. I'm not seeing pfn==0x4d80 going
> anywhere near kexec_allocate, the high
On Tue, Dec 01, 2015 at 10:04:38AM +, Ian Campbell wrote:
> On Tue, 2015-12-01 at 10:01 +, Ian Campbell wrote:
> >
> > > > I'll try that and your suggested patch below as well once I get to the
> > > > office this morning.
> > >
> > > Thanks.
> >
> > The BUG_ON doesn't seem to be trigger
On Tue, 2015-12-01 at 10:21 +, Wei Liu wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 01, 2015 at 10:04:38AM +, Ian Campbell wrote:
> > On Tue, 2015-12-01 at 10:01 +, Ian Campbell wrote:
> > >
> > > > > I'll try that and your suggested patch below as well once I get
> > > > > to the
> > > > > office this mornin
On Tue, Dec 01, 2015 at 10:31:20AM +, Ian Campbell wrote:
> On Tue, 2015-12-01 at 10:21 +, Wei Liu wrote:
> > On Tue, Dec 01, 2015 at 10:04:38AM +, Ian Campbell wrote:
> > > On Tue, 2015-12-01 at 10:01 +, Ian Campbell wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > > I'll try that and your suggested patc
On Tue, 2015-12-01 at 10:33 +, Wei Liu wrote:
>
> > > Just some thought after a quick look at the code. I will see what I
> > > can
> > > do after confirming this is the culprit.
> >
> > I don't mind finishing this one off (although I'm also equally happy to
> > hand it over ;-))
>
> Already
On 01/12/15 11:01, Ian Campbell wrote:
> On Tue, 2015-12-01 at 09:53 +0100, Juergen Gross wrote:
>> On 01/12/15 09:30, Ian Campbell wrote:
>>> On Tue, 2015-12-01 at 08:41 +0100, Juergen Gross wrote:
>> I'm not quite sure what to make of this, in particular I don't
>> see
anything
>
18 matches
Mail list logo
