WARNING - OLD ARCHIVES

This is an archived copy of the Xen.org mailing list, which we have preserved to ensure that existing links to archives are not broken. The live archive, which contains the latest emails, can be found at http://lists.xen.org/
   
 
 
Xen 
 
Home Products Support Community News
 
   
 

xen-devel

Re: [Xen-devel] [xen-4.1-testing test] 9805: regressions - FAIL

To: Stefan Bader <stefan.bader@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] [xen-4.1-testing test] 9805: regressions - FAIL
From: Stefano Stabellini <stefano.stabellini@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2011 10:32:57 +0000
Cc: "xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "Keir \(Xen.org\)" <keir@xxxxxxx>, Stefano Stabellini <Stefano.Stabellini@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Ian Jackson <Ian.Jackson@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Jan, Beulich <JBeulich@xxxxxxxx>
Delivery-date: Thu, 17 Nov 2011 02:32:55 -0800
Envelope-to: www-data@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <4EC4E1DD.1030309@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
List-help: <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=help>
List-id: Xen developer discussion <xen-devel.lists.xensource.com>
List-post: <mailto:xen-devel@lists.xensource.com>
List-subscribe: <http://lists.xensource.com/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>, <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=subscribe>
List-unsubscribe: <http://lists.xensource.com/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>, <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=unsubscribe>
References: <CAEA8EB6.343DD%keir@xxxxxxx> <4EC4E1DD.1030309@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sender: xen-devel-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
User-agent: Alpine 2.00 (DEB 1167 2008-08-23)
On Thu, 17 Nov 2011, Stefan Bader wrote:
> On 17.11.2011 11:13, Keir Fraser wrote:
> > On 17/11/2011 09:57, "Stefan Bader" <stefan.bader@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > 
> >>>> This is due to a bad backport of c/s 24007:0526644ad2a6: In -unstable,
> >>>> evtchn_unmask() must be called with d->event_lock held, while in 4.1
> >>>> the function acquires the lock (and now gets called with the lock already
> >>>> held from do_physdev_op()'s case PHYSDEVOP_eoi). The change dates
> >>>> back to 23573:584c2e5e03d9, which hardly is a candidate for backporting
> >>>> (but maybe the locking change needs to be pulled out of there).
> >>>
> >>> Interestingly, Ubuntu's 4.1 fix has exactly the same problem.
> >>>
> >>
> >> Hm, yes we should. I am pretty sure I hit that code path often enough, 
> >> Wonder
> >> why I never saw any dead lock there...
> > 
> > Perhaps your dom0 kernel doesn't register a pirq_eoi_map.
> > 
> Would be the only explanation. And quite possible. Heck, I would need to know
> what that is used for anyway. :/ The kernel is 3.0 based the interrupt I was
> looking at just was a normal apic emulated through events one...

Same here, I don't have any dom0 kernels that support it.

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel