On Tue, Nov 07, 2017 at 05:24:32PM +0000, Julien Grall wrote: > Hi Wei, > > On 07/11/17 15:13, Wei Liu wrote: > > On Tue, Nov 07, 2017 at 03:09:07PM +0000, Julien Grall wrote: > >> Hi Wei, > >> > >> On 06/11/17 14:55, Wei Liu wrote: > >>> On Mon, Nov 06, 2017 at 01:47:56PM +0000, osstest service owner wrote: > >>>> branch xen-unstable > >>>> xenbranch xen-unstable > >>>> job test-amd64-amd64-i386-pvgrub > >>>> testid guest-start > >>>> > >>>> Tree: linux git://xenbits.xen.org/linux-pvops.git > >>>> Tree: linuxfirmware git://xenbits.xen.org/osstest/linux-firmware.git > >>>> Tree: qemu git://xenbits.xen.org/qemu-xen-traditional.git > >>>> Tree: qemuu git://xenbits.xen.org/qemu-xen.git > >>>> Tree: xen git://xenbits.xen.org/xen.git > >>>> > >>>> *** Found and reproduced problem changeset *** > >>>> > >>>> Bug is in tree: xen git://xenbits.xen.org/xen.git > >>>> Bug introduced: f48b5449dabc770acdde6d25cfbd265cfb71034d > >>>> Bug not present: 86cf189a957129ea1ad6468fe9a0887b9e2819f3 > >>>> Last fail repro: > >>>> http://logs.test-lab.xenproject.org/osstest/logs/115612/ > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> commit f48b5449dabc770acdde6d25cfbd265cfb71034d > >>>> Author: Wei Liu <wei.l...@citrix.com> > >>>> Date: Thu Oct 12 20:19:07 2017 +0100 > >>>> tools/dombuilder: Switch to using gfn terminology for console > >>>> and xenstore rings > >>>> The sole use of xc_dom_translated() and xc_dom_p2m() outside of > >>>> the domain > >>>> builder is for libxl_dom() to translate the console and xenstore > >>>> pfns back > >>>> into useful values. PV guest pfns are only interesting to the > >>>> domain builder, > >>>> and gfns are the address space used by all other hypercalls. > >>>> Renaming the fields in xc_dom_image is deliberate, as it will > >>>> cause > >>>> out-of-tree users of the dombuilder to notice the different > >>>> semantics. > >>>> Correct the terminology throughout xc_dom_gnttab{_hvm,}_seed(), > >>>> which are all > >>>> using gfns despite the existing variable names. > >>>> Signed-off-by: Andrew Cooper <andrew.coop...@citrix.com> > >>>> Reviewed-by: Roger Pau Monn?? <roger....@citrix.com> > >>>> Acked-by: Wei Liu <wei.l...@citrix.com> > >>>> Tested-by: Julien Grall <julien.gr...@arm.com> > >>>> Release-acked-by: Julien Grall <julien.gr...@linaro.org> > >>>> [ wei: fix stubdom build ] > >>>> Signed-off-by: Wei Liu <wei.l...@citrix.com> > >>> > >>> This has broken pvgrub. The problem is more than just the name of the > >>> variables. I have reverted this and its successor patch. > >> > >> It looks like osstest is still broken after the patches you reverted (see > >> [1] and [2]). > >> > >> AFAICT, the only series between the two flights is the dombuilder, there > >> are > >> 2 patches not reverted. > >> > >> Do you have an idea of what's going on? > >> > >> Cheers, > >> > >> [1] http://logs.test-lab.xenproject.org/osstest/logs/115624/ > >> [2] > >> https://lists.xenproject.org/archives/html/xen-devel/2017-11/msg00391.html > >> > > > > test-amd64-amd64-xl-qemut-win7-amd64 16 guest-localmigrate/x10 fail REGR. > > vs. 115526 > > test-armhf-armhf-xl-vhd 15 guest-start/debian.repeat fail REGR. vs. > > 115526 > > The log for the xl-vhd contains ([1]) > > libxl: error: libxl_bootloader.c:283:bootloader_local_detached_cb: Domain > 11:unable to detach locally attached disk > libxl: error: libxl_create.c:1246:domcreate_rebuild_done: Domain 11:cannot > (re-)build domain: -3 > libxl: debug: libxl_domain.c:1138:devices_destroy_cb: Domain 11:Forked pid > 5103 for destroy of domain > libxl: debug: libxl_create.c:1683:do_domain_create: Domain 0:ao 0x5d6e8: > inprogress: poller=0x56ad8, flags=i > libxl: debug: libxl_event.c:1869:libxl__ao_complete: ao 0x5d6e8: complete, > rc=-3 > libxl: debug: libxl_event.c:1838:libxl__ao__destroy: ao 0x5d6e8: destroy > libxl: debug: libxl_domain.c:868:libxl_domain_destroy: Domain 11:ao 0x5a170: > create: how=(nil) callback=(nil) poller=0x56ad8 > libxl: error: libxl_domain.c:1000:libxl__destroy_domid: Domain > 11:Non-existant domain > libxl: error: libxl_domain.c:959:domain_destroy_callback: Domain 11:Unable to > destroy guest > libxl: error: libxl_domain.c:886:domain_destroy_cb: Domain 11:Destruction of > domain failed > libxl: debug: libxl_event.c:1869:libxl__ao_complete: ao 0x5a170: complete, > rc=-21 > libxl: debug: libxl_domain.c:877:libxl_domain_destroy: Domain 11:ao 0x5a170: > inprogress: poller=0x56ad8, flags=ic > libxl: debug: libxl_event.c:1838:libxl__ao__destroy: ao 0x5a170: destroy > > It is in guest repeat and has succeed few times before. > > Looking at the success/failure ([2]), the same configuration passed on the > Arndale > (see 115580) but fails reliably on the cubietruck. >
The same test failed on Arndale as well in 115314 and 115526, with the same error messages. http://logs.test-lab.xenproject.org/osstest/logs/115526/test-armhf-armhf-xl-vhd/16.ts-guest-start.log So the failure isn't related to Andrew's series. > My guess would be the disk is not detached by the previous guest in time. > Now the question is why? I am not familiar with this area, any ideas? > I don't have immediate idea either. I've set up a repro flight so that we can have something to play with. _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xen.org https://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
