[Xen-devel] RE: unstable binaries

[Michael Rice <michael@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

> > failed on all kernels, so it probably a fedora issue. The tests 
> > "ioperm02", "iopl02" and "nanosleep02" failed on all xen-kernels,
> > and only on them. This is the output for "nanosleep02":
> 
> The iopl02 and ioperm02 failures are expected, but not at all serious.
> We actually have a plan to virtualize iopl just to tidy this up.
> 
> nanosleep2 is a surprise -- I can"t recall seeing this fail before. I
> wander if its an Athlon issue...

I'm seeing a similar problem on different Hardware and OS.  Sorry 
in advance about the verbosity of this.  I am looking for an answer
and a reliably working kernel, so I'm off to try 2.0.5 and more.

hardware:       IBM x335 (2.4Ghz Xeon P4), 1.5G RAM, 2x80G IDE
domain0:        RedHat Enterprise Linux 3ES
domain0 kernel: 2.4.29-xen0
domain1:        (dd copy of dom0) RedHat Enterprise Linux 3ES
domain1 kernel: 2.6.10-xenU
xen:            xen-2.0.4-install.tgz
bridge-utils:   bridge-utils-1.0.4-1
Twisted:        Twisted-1.3.0-1tummy
unixbench:      unixbench-4.1.0
ltp:            ltp-full-20050307
gcc:            gcc version 3.2.3 20030502 (Red Hat Linux 3.2.3-47)

I ran ltp on domain1 and also get the error Nils reported earlier on 
nanosleep02.  Note that I am not getting this error on domain0 or 
native.  

full ltp output: http://www.riceclan.org/~michael/xen/
There are several failed tests in there.   

I was investigating why the unixbench-4.1.0 'speed' series would 
consistently hang during the 'float' tests.  While the tests were 
running (high CPU usage) top died with an error similar to Nils'
on wget (though the exact text escaped me).  tail has exhibited this
as well: 
tail: xnanosleep.c:128: xnanosleep: Assertion `0 <= seconds' failed.

The unixbench script does a 'sleep 1' and a 'sleep 2' inside the
test counter loop.  The first round these are exactly as expected
(see strace output at http://www.riceclan.org/~michael/xen/ and 
excerpt below) but in the second round (sometimes I make it to 
the third) my 'sleep 1' instead makes the third call below:

1367  nanosleep({1, 0}, NULL)           = 0
1369  nanosleep({2, 0}, NULL)           = 0
1375  nanosleep({2147483647, 999999999},

the 'float' test reliably reproduces the problem (./Run -D float).

I don't presume to know why this would happen, but I hope that it
makes sense or helps some of you.

-- 
Michael Rice <michael@xxxxxxxxxxxx>



-------------------------------------------------------
SF email is sponsored by - The IT Product Guide
Read honest & candid reviews on hundreds of IT Products from real users.
Discover which products truly live up to the hype. Start reading now.
http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=6595&alloc_id=14396&op=click
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/xen-devel