If so, it's a relatively recent development. Things worked fine with a
clone of changeset 21632 from the xen-unstable "staging" repository
(pulled June 17). Things went south after I pulled changeset 21650 from
the xen-unstable repository (pulled June 22). But, then again, that's
when xend stopped being started automatically.
I really don't think that everything else is "fine" because I can't
connect to Dom1 (using "xm console" or ssh), and I never get a Dom1
prompt.
Thanks for the thought,
Kathy
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dan Magenheimer [mailto:dan.magenheimer@xxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Thursday, June 24, 2010 9:08 AM
> To: Kathy Hadley; Keir Fraser; George Dunlap
> Cc: xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: RE: [Xen-devel] [PATCH 1/1] Xen ARINC 653 Scheduler (updated
> to add support for CPU pools)
>
> Just a thought...
>
> With all the recent tool layer changes (involving udev, xend,
> bridging etc), any chance that everything in the guest
> is working just fine and everything in the hypervisor
> is working just fine but the connections to the console
> in your distro/configuration are not playing nicely with
> the recent xen-unstable tool changes, so you just can't see
> that everything (else) is fine?
>
> (if so, please support my recent rant against changes that
> cause "unnecessary pain" ;-)
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Kathy Hadley [mailto:Kathy.Hadley@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> > Sent: Thursday, June 24, 2010 6:54 AM
> > To: Keir Fraser; George Dunlap
> > Cc: xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > Subject: RE: [Xen-devel] [PATCH 1/1] Xen ARINC 653 Scheduler
(updated
> > to add support for CPU pools)
> >
> > We are using the following set-up:
> > Xen-unstable changeset 21650
> > Gentoo 2.6.29.6 with Xen patches for Dom0
> > Linux 2.6.18-Xen for DomU (downloaded from linux-2.6.18-xen.hg)
> >
> > Dom0 and DomU run fine with Xen-3.4.1 and Xen-4.0.0 (our scheduler
or
> > the credit scheduler). Dom0 appears to run fine with xen-unstable,
> but
> > DomU "hangs" when our scheduler or the credit scheduler (as
discussed
> > in
> > earlier e-mails). "xm list" shows that DomU is blocked.
> >
> > Do you have any suggestions for how I could troubleshoot this issue?
> > I'm still wondering about the warning I'm seeing issued from traps.c
> -
> > while it could have nothing to do with my issue, it is an
interesting
> > coincidence.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Kathy Hadley
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Keir Fraser [mailto:keir.fraser@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> > > Sent: Wednesday, June 23, 2010 6:36 PM
> > > To: Kathy Hadley; George Dunlap
> > > Cc: xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > > Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH 1/1] Xen ARINC 653 Scheduler
> (updated
> > > to add support for CPU pools)
> > >
> > > I've just built latest xen-unstable.hg and linux-2.6.18-xen.hg and
> > > booted a
> > > domU just fine. All my builds are 64-bit though whereas yours are
> 32-
> > > bit. I
> > > suppose that could cause a difference (in particular, 32-bit
> > hypervisor
> > > is
> > > less tested by people).
> > >
> > > -- Keir
> > >
> > > On 23/06/2010 22:16, "Kathy Hadley" <Kathy.Hadley@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Keir,
> > > > I see this same behavior when I run the credit scheduler. It
> > > doesn't
> > > > look like it's localized to the scheduler I'm working on. I
> pulled
> > > the
> > > > latest code from
http://xenbits.xensource.com/linux-2.6.18-xen.hg
> > and
> > > > rebuilt the kernel earlier today, with no effect.
> > > >
> > > > Note that I can successfully start the domain with Xen-3.4.1
> and
> > > > Xen-4.0.0, using the same configuration file as I am using with
> > > > xen-unstable.
> > > >
> > > > Kathy
> > > >
> > > >> -----Original Message-----
> > > >> From: Keir Fraser [mailto:keir.fraser@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> > > >> Sent: Wednesday, June 23, 2010 4:23 PM
> > > >> To: Kathy Hadley; George Dunlap
> > > >> Cc: xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > > >> Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH 1/1] Xen ARINC 653 Scheduler
> > > (updated
> > > >> to add support for CPU pools)
> > > >>
> > > >> On 23/06/2010 20:57, "Kathy Hadley"
> <Kathy.Hadley@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > >> wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >>> Call Trace:
> > > >>> [<c01013a7>] hypercall_page+0x3a7 <--
> > > >>> [<c0109005>] raw_safe_halt+0xa5
> > > >>> [<c0104789>] xen_idle+0x49
> > > >>> [<c010482d>] cpu_idle+0x8d
> > > >>> [<c0404895>] start_kernel+0x3f5
> > > >>> [<c04041d0>] do_early_param+0x80
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Does this shed any light on the situation?
> > > >>
> > > >> Looks like you're in the idle loop. So, no, it doesn't really
> shed
> > > > much
> > > >> useful light.
> > > >>
> > > >> -- Keir
> > > >>
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Xen-devel mailing list
> > Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
|
Home