I got it all built with all the patches. I am now
able to run xend. But when I do "xm create"
I just get as far as:
xen-event-channel using irq 233
store-evtchn = 1
and then the 0+1+01 (etc) debug output.
Wait... I tried launching another domain and got
further. Or I guess this is just delayed console
output from the first "xm create"?
It gets as far as:
Xen virtual console successfully installed as tty0
Event-channel device installed.
xen_blk: Initialising virtual block device driver
and then nothing else.
So I tried launching some more domains (with name=xxx).
Now I get as far as the kernel unable-to-mount-root
It's hard to tell what is working because of the
console problems (that I see you have posted a question
about on xen-devel).
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tian, Kevin [mailto:kevin.tian@xxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Thursday, September 15, 2005 6:32 AM
> To: Magenheimer, Dan (HP Labs Fort Collins)
> Cc: ipf-xen
> Subject: RE: Latest status about multiple domains on XEN/IPF
> Hi, Dan,
> Attached are updated xeno patch (xen patch still same),
> but no functional enhancement actually. Some Makefile change
> is required to build latest xenolinux.hg, though bit ugly.
> ;-) Together with another patch I sent out for solving domU
> crash on the mailing list (Took me most time of the day),
> hope you can reach same point as mine:
> Blkfront failed to connect to xenstore, and mount root fs panic.
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: Magenheimer, Dan (HP Labs Fort Collins)
> >Sent: 2005年9月15日 12:05
> >To: Tian, Kevin
> >Cc: ipf-xen
> >Subject: RE: Latest status about multiple domains on XEN/IPF
> >> Thanks for comments. When I sent out the patch, I
> >> didn't mean it as the final one and just for you to continue
> >> debug. So the style is a bit messed, and your most comments
> >> regarding coding style are correct. I anyway will be careful
> >> next time even when sending out temp patch.
> >Oh, OK. I didn't realize it was a "continue debug" patch.
> >> >I haven't seen any machine crashes, but I am both
> >> >running on a different machine and exercising it
> >> >differently. If you have any test to reproduce
> >> >it, please let me know. I have noticed that
> >> >running "hg clone" seems to reproducibly cause
> >> >a segmentation fault... I haven't had any time
> >> >to try to track this down. (I think Intel has better
> >> >hardware debugging capabilities... perhaps if you
> >> >can reproduce this, someone on the Intel team can
> >> >track it down?)
> >> I see the crash when domU was executing. Actually if only
> >> dom0 is up, it can run safely for several days.
> >OK. Yes, I have seen dom0 stay up for many days
> >too; that's why I was concerned if it was crashing.
> >> >When I last tried, I wasn't able to get xend to
> >> >run (lots of python errors). It looks like you
> >> >have gotten it to run?
> >> Is it possible due to the python version? The default python
> >> version on EL3 is 2.2, and with it we saw many python errors
> >> before. Now we're using 2.4.1.
> >I am using 2.3.5 but that has always worked before.
> >> One more question. Did you try xend with all my patches
> >> applied? Without change to do_memory_ops which is explained
> >> below, xend doesn't start since its memory reservation
> >> request will fail.
> >I bet that is the problem. I haven't tried it since
> >receiving your patch and will try it again tomorrow.
> >> >3) In privcmd.c (other than the same comment about
> >> > ifdef'ing every change), why did you change the
> >> > direct_remap_... --> remap__... define back?
> >> > Was it incorrect or just a style change? Again,
> >> > I am trying to change the patches to something that
> >> > will likely be more acceptable upstream and
> >> > I think we will be able to move this simple
> >> > define into an asm header file. If my change
> >> > to your patch is broken, please let me know.
> >> But as you may note, two functions requires different
> >> parameters, one for mm_struct and another for vma. So your
> >> previous change is incorrect.
> >No I missed that difference entirely! Good catch!
> >> >6) I will add your patch to hypercall.c (in the hypervisor).
> >> > But the comment immediately preceding concerns me...
> >> > are reservations implemented or not? (I think not,
> >> > unless maybe they are only in VTI?)
> >> No, both don't handle the reservation. However the issue is
> >> that now nr_extents is not the level 1 parameter which
> >> previous code simply retrieves from pt_regs. Now it's a sub
> >> field in a new reservation structure, with the later only
> >> parameter passed in. So I have to add above logic to get
> >> nr_extents and return result that caller wants.
> >If you have an updated patch by the end of your day,
> >please send it and I will try it out tomorrow.
Xen-ia64-devel mailing list