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-ia64-devel

Re: [Xen-ia64-devel] [Test Report] Xen/IPF Unstable CS#18860 Status ---

On Tue, Dec 09, 2008 at 05:56:25PM +0800, You, Yongkang wrote:
> On Monday, December 08, 2008 2:10 PM, "Isaku Yamahata" wrote:
> 
> > On Mon, Dec 08, 2008 at 01:52:38PM +0800, Zhang, Jingke wrote:
> >> Isaku Yamahata wrote:
> >>> On Mon, Dec 08, 2008 at 11:31:15AM +0800, Zhang, Jingke wrote:
> >>>> Hi Isaku,
> >>>>     We re-get the detail information from serial port, please see
> >>>> below. Two comments add:
> >>> 
> >>> Thank you.
> >>> 
> >>> 
> >>>>     1. We can be sure the Cset#18832 works well on the same tiger4
> >>>> machine. But we did not do regression test between 18832 and this
> >>>> 18860. 
> >>>>     2. It is strange that on another Tiger4 box, dom0 will NOT
> >>>> crash. Do you have any idea from the serial log? Thanks!
> >>> 
> >>> I haven't hit this crash. And Kuwamura-san's test seems that
> >>> he haven't hit it either. Kuwamura-san, is it correct?
> >>> Hmm... it seems to depend on hw configuration?
> >>> I'm inclined to suspect masking/unmasking interruption race.
> >>> event channel issues? But that's just only my very vague guess.
> >>> 
> >>> The difference between 18832 and 18860 means the merging
> >>> xen-unstable into xen-ia64-unstable. Looking the log, I suspect
> >>> linux-2.6.18-xen instead of xen. 
> >>> Could you provide the linux c/s which corresponds to 18832 and
> >>> 18860? 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> Hi Isaku,
> >>     Yes, some of our machines do not crash. I am afraid there may be
> >>     some potential issue. By testing 18832, we use linux#742. While
> >> 18860 uses linux#753. Thanks! 
> > 
> > Thank you. Taking rough look at them those change sets doesn't
> > seem culprit.
> > I agree with you that this may indicate some potential bugs...
> 
> Hi All,
> 
> This bug is stably reproduced, if providing "dom0_mem=2048M" in append 
> option. And if setting dom0_mem to 1024M or 4096M, the crashing doesn't 
> happen. 
> 
> We tried #18869 Xen + #742 Dom0, system is okay. So the problem might be in 
> Linux tree between #742~#753

I tried 2048M (and other value), but I wasn't reproduce it.
Hmm, does it reproduce with "dom0_mem=2048M" on all boxes which you tested?

thanks,
-- 
yamahata

_______________________________________________
Xen-ia64-devel mailing list
Xen-ia64-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-ia64-devel