Re: [Xen-devel] Bug: Windows 2003 fails to install on xen-unstable tip

[George Dunlap <george.dunlap@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On 23/04/13 17:04, Jan Beulich wrote:
> > > > On 23.04.13 at 17:46, George Dunlap <george.dunlap@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On 23/04/13 16:02, Jan Beulich wrote:
> > > > > > On 23.04.13 at 16:57, George Dunlap <george.dunlap@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > > On 23/04/13 15:55, Jan Beulich wrote:
> > > > > > > > On 23.04.13 at 16:21, George Dunlap <george.dunlap@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > > > > On 23/04/13 14:00, Jan Beulich wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > On 23.04.13 at 13:52, George Dunlap <george.dunlap@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > > > > > > On 23/04/13 12:33, Jan Beulich wrote:
> > > > > > > Just went through that change again: The only thing that changes
> > > > > > > is that while rtc_periodic_cb() (simply setting REG_C flags) got
> > > > > > > called at the end of pt_intr_post(), rtc_periodic_interrupt() now
> > > > > > > gets called from pt_update_irq(), and therefore takes care of
> > > > > > > asserting the IRQ itself (which originally happened inside
> > > > > > > pt_update_irq()) along with setting REG_C flags. Bottom line -
> > > > > > > all the patch changes is when exactly REG_PF (and possibly
> > > > > > > REG_IRQF) get set, and whether the IRQ actually gets asserted.
> > > > > > So that last bit seems to do these things:
> > > > > > a. Changes when the handling happens in the Xen interrupt handler
> > > > > > b. Causes assert/deassert to only happen if !(C.PF) && (B.PIE)
> > > > > >       (Before it happened unconditionally)
> > > > > > c. Causes C.IRQF=1 only if (same condition above)
> > > > > >      (Before it happened unconditionally)
> > > > > > d. Runs destroy_periodic_timer() if C.PF already
> > > > > >
> > > > > > So just to figure out what it was that w2k3 wanted, I tried a bunch of
> > > > > > variations:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > * All of above
> > > > > >      BAD
> > > > > > * a only; always assert/deassert + set C.IRQF
> > > > > >      GOOD
> > > > > > * always assert/deassert, but leave destroy_periodic_timer and IRQF
> > > > > > setting alone
> > > > > >      FAIL
> > > > > > * destroy if C.PF, assert/deassert, set IRQF if setting C.PF (don't
> > > > > > check B.PIE)
> > > > > >      FAIL
> > > > > > * destroy if C.PF, always assert/deassert + set C.IRQF
> > > > > >      FAIL
> > > > > > * never destroy, assert/deassert + set C.IRQF if setting C.PF
> > > > > >      FAIL
> > > > > > * never destroy, assert/deassert + set C.IRQF if !C.IRQF
> > > > > >      FAIL
> > > > > >
> > > > > > In short, it seems that w2k3 basically expects an unlimited number of
> > > > > > attempts to actually deliver the interrupt.
> > > > > Not always doing the deassert/assert pair was actually part of Tim's
> > > > > subsequent changes - before that it got called conditionally upon
> > > > > B.PIE, but always set C.IRQF and always deasserted and asserted.
> > > > > Since we know from the debug log that B.PIE is set, I fail to see how
> > > > > the code prior to "x86/hvm: Centralize and simplify the RTC IRQ logic"
> > > > > would have not worked, but the above case turned out GOOD.
> > > > >
> > > > > So did his earlier 3 changes perhaps fix the issue, and the fourth re-
> > > > > introduced it?
> > > > If you've got a git hash I can try to revert it.
> > > 527824f41f5fac9cba3d4441b2e73d3118d98837
> > Reverting that c/s has no effect.
> To me that contradicts your earlier findings, but the whole story
> shows that I must be missing something.
With that c/s reverted, it still only does the deassert/assert/set 
C.IRQF if !C.PF && B.PIE; so from my previous findings I would have 
expected the test to fail.
> > And if I then make the change that made it work before -- namely,
> > unconditionally calling rtc_toggle_irq in rtc_periodic_interrupt() --
> > then the w2k3 installer just spins instead of hangs.
> >
> > At this point I think it's worth asking: is raising needless IRQs and
> > running non-used pmtimers really causing that big of an issue? Given
> > that I've just spent a whole day trying to debug this, wouldn't it be
> > better just to revert all the rtc-related changesets from 620d5da?
> Reverting everything, as said a number of times before, is certainly
> not the right thing.
Well we can't release with w2k3 not booting -- that's not the right 
thing either.  :-)
Anyway, if you have patches you want me to try I can give them a spin; 
but other than that I don't think I'm going to spend any more time 
trying to track down this particular problem.
 -George

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel