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

Hello Keir,

Thursday, November 17, 2011, 11:37:01 AM, you wrote:

> On 17/11/2011 10:28, "Stefan Bader" <stefan.bader@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

>>>> 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...

> Our automated tests still use 2.6.32. It wouldn't surprise me if upstream
> Linux 3 doesn't have the pirq_eoi_map stuff; it's an optimisation rather
> than core absolutely-required functionality.

Don't know how much room (time wise) the machines that do the automated testing 
have, but additional tests based on latest 3.x and/or konrad's linux-next 
branch should perhaps be considered ?
Especially since they upstream path is getting more and more feature complete 
and usable.

--
Sander

> It's the dom0 PV kernel that matters in this case by the way, not the kernel
> that you are running in HVM mode as a domU.

>  -- Keir







-- 
Best regards,
 Sander                            mailto:linux@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx


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

<Prev in Thread]

Current Thread

[Next in Thread>

Previous by Date:

Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH 1 of 5] [mq]: sched-credit-options, Andrew Cooper

Next by Date:

[Xen-devel] [PATCH 0 of 5] xl scheduler support, Juergen Gross

Previous by Thread:

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

Next by Thread:

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

Indexes:

[Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists]