hi, attached you find the xm dmesg output of my xen-unstable machine, first domU starts correct, second/third crashes (see log). dom0 and domU were both compiled with smp support (smt enabled) on a dual xeon 2.8. did i missed something at kernel configuration? -- Tschaw/2, Stoeni! ++ Please remember: rm -rf means "read mail -really fast" ++ _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
stoeni wrote:>hi, > >attached you find the xm dmesg output of my xen-unstable machine, first >domU starts correct, second/third crashes (see log). > >dom0 and domU were both compiled with smp support (smt enabled) on a >dual xeon 2.8. > >did i missed something at kernel configuration? > >No. I reported this problem some time back and am still seeing it daily: http://bugzilla.xensource.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=267> > >------------------------------------------------------------------------ > >Xen version 3.0-devel (root@localhost) (gcc version 3.3.5 (Debian 1:3.3.5-13)) Wed Nov 9 14:56:57 CET 2005 >Latest ChangeSet: Tue Nov 8 17:42:07 2005 +0100 7702:b3c2bc39d815 > >(XEN) Physical RAM map: >(XEN) 0000000000000000 - 000000000009f000 (usable) >(XEN) 000000000009f000 - 00000000000a0000 (reserved) >(XEN) 00000000000e0000 - 0000000000100000 (reserved) >(XEN) 0000000000100000 - 00000000bffcdfb9 (usable) >(XEN) 00000000bffcdfb9 - 00000000bfff0000 (reserved) >(XEN) 00000000bfff0000 - 00000000bffff000 (ACPI data) >(XEN) 00000000bffff000 - 00000000c0000000 (ACPI NVS) >(XEN) 00000000fec00000 - 00000000fec86000 (reserved) >(XEN) 00000000fee00000 - 00000000fee01000 (reserved) >(XEN) 00000000ffc00000 - 0000000100000000 (reserved) >(XEN) 0000000100000000 - 00000001c0000000 (usable) >(XEN) System RAM: 6143MB (6290864kB) >(XEN) Xen heap: 10MB (10420kB) >(XEN) PAE enabled, limit: 16 GB >(XEN) found SMP MP-table at 000ff780 >(XEN) DMI 2.3 present. >(XEN) Using APIC driver default >(XEN) ACPI: RSDP (v000 ACPIAM ) @ 0x000f7de0 >(XEN) ACPI: RSDT (v001 A M I OEMRSDT 0x05000503 MSFT 0x00000097) @ 0xbfff0000 >(XEN) ACPI: FADT (v001 A M I OEMFACP 0x05000503 MSFT 0x00000097) @ 0xbfff0200 >(XEN) ACPI: MADT (v001 A M I OEMAPIC 0x05000503 MSFT 0x00000097) @ 0xbfff0300 >(XEN) ACPI: MCFG (v001 A M I OEMMCFG 0x05000503 MSFT 0x00000097) @ 0xbfff03e0 >(XEN) ACPI: OEMB (v001 A M I OEMBIOS 0x05000503 MSFT 0x00000097) @ 0xbffff040 >(XEN) ACPI: DSDT (v001 LHREF LHREF001 0x00000001 INTL 0x02002026) @ 0x00000000 >(XEN) ACPI: Local APIC address 0xfee00000 >(XEN) ACPI: LAPIC (acpi_id[0x01] lapic_id[0x00] enabled) >(XEN) Processor #0 15:4 APIC version 20 >(XEN) ACPI: LAPIC (acpi_id[0x02] lapic_id[0x06] enabled) >(XEN) Processor #6 15:4 APIC version 20 >(XEN) ACPI: LAPIC (acpi_id[0x03] lapic_id[0x01] enabled) >(XEN) Processor #1 15:4 APIC version 20 >(XEN) ACPI: LAPIC (acpi_id[0x04] lapic_id[0x07] enabled) >(XEN) Processor #7 15:4 APIC version 20 >(XEN) ACPI: LAPIC_NMI (acpi_id[0x01] high edge lint[0x1]) >(XEN) ACPI: LAPIC_NMI (acpi_id[0x02] high edge lint[0x1]) >(XEN) ACPI: LAPIC_NMI (acpi_id[0x03] high edge lint[0x1]) >(XEN) ACPI: LAPIC_NMI (acpi_id[0x04] high edge lint[0x1]) >(XEN) ACPI: IOAPIC (id[0x08] address[0xfec00000] gsi_base[0]) >(XEN) IOAPIC[0]: apic_id 8, version 32, address 0xfec00000, GSI 0-23 >(XEN) ACPI: IOAPIC (id[0x09] address[0xfec10000] gsi_base[24]) >(XEN) IOAPIC[1]: apic_id 9, version 32, address 0xfec10000, GSI 24-47 >(XEN) ACPI: INT_SRC_OVR (bus 0 bus_irq 0 global_irq 2 dfl dfl) >(XEN) ACPI: INT_SRC_OVR (bus 0 bus_irq 9 global_irq 9 high level) >(XEN) ACPI: IRQ0 used by override. >(XEN) ACPI: IRQ2 used by override. >(XEN) ACPI: IRQ9 used by override. >(XEN) Enabling APIC mode: Flat. Using 2 I/O APICs >(XEN) Using ACPI (MADT) for SMP configuration information >(XEN) Initializing CPU#0 >(XEN) Detected 2793.158 MHz processor. >(XEN) Using scheduler: Simple EDF Scheduler (sedf) >(XEN) CPU: Trace cache: 12K uops, L1 D cache: 16K >(XEN) CPU: L2 cache: 1024K >(XEN) CPU: Physical Processor ID: 0 >(XEN) CPU0: Intel(R) Xeon(TM) CPU 2.80GHz stepping 01 >(XEN) Booting processor 1/1 eip 90000 >(XEN) Initializing CPU#1 >(XEN) CPU: Trace cache: 12K uops, L1 D cache: 16K >(XEN) CPU: L2 cache: 1024K >(XEN) CPU: Physical Processor ID: 0 >(XEN) CPU1: Intel(R) Xeon(TM) CPU 2.80GHz stepping 01 >(XEN) Booting processor 2/6 eip 90000 >(XEN) Initializing CPU#2 >(XEN) CPU: Trace cache: 12K uops, L1 D cache: 16K >(XEN) CPU: L2 cache: 1024K >(XEN) CPU: Physical Processor ID: 3 >(XEN) CPU2: Intel(R) Xeon(TM) CPU 2.80GHz stepping 01 >(XEN) Booting processor 3/7 eip 90000 >(XEN) Initializing CPU#3 >(XEN) CPU: Trace cache: 12K uops, L1 D cache: 16K >(XEN) CPU: L2 cache: 1024K >(XEN) CPU: Physical Processor ID: 3 >(XEN) CPU3: Intel(R) Xeon(TM) CPU 2.80GHz stepping 01 >(XEN) Total of 4 processors activated. >(XEN) ENABLING IO-APIC IRQs >(XEN) ..TIMER: vector=0x31 pin1=2 pin2=-1 >(XEN) checking TSC synchronization across 4 CPUs: passed. >(XEN) Platform timer is 1.193MHz PIT >(XEN) Brought up 4 CPUs >(XEN) mtrr: v2.0 (20020519) >(XEN) *** LOADING DOMAIN 0 *** >(XEN) Xen-ELF header found: ''GUEST_OS=linux,GUEST_VER=2.6,XEN_VER=3.0,VIRT_BASE=0xC0000000,PAE=yes,LOADER=generic'' >(XEN) PHYSICAL MEMORY ARRANGEMENT: >(XEN) Dom0 alloc.: 0000000007800000->0000000008000000 (30720 pages to be allocated) >(XEN) VIRTUAL MEMORY ARRANGEMENT: >(XEN) Loaded kernel: c0100000->c0489de8 >(XEN) Init. ramdisk: c048a000->c048a000 >(XEN) Phys-Mach map: c048a000->c04aa000 >(XEN) Start info: c04aa000->c04ab000 >(XEN) Page tables: c04ab000->c04b4000 >(XEN) Boot stack: c04b4000->c04b5000 >(XEN) TOTAL: c0000000->c0800000 >(XEN) ENTRY ADDRESS: c0100000 >(XEN) Scrubbing Free RAM: ........................................................................done. >(XEN) Xen trace buffers: disabled >(XEN) *** Serial input -> DOM0 (type ''CTRL-a'' three times to switch input to Xen). >(XEN) Domain 2 (vcpu#0) crashed on cpu#1: >(XEN) CPU: 1 >(XEN) EIP: e019:[<c0115198>] >(XEN) EFLAGS: 00000246 CONTEXT: guest >(XEN) eax: 00000000 ebx: 00000000 ecx: 00000000 edx: 00000000 >(XEN) esi: 00000000 edi: 00000000 ebp: 00000000 esp: c0321ed0 >(XEN) cr0: 8005003b cr3: 03b9c000 >(XEN) ds: e021 es: e021 fs: 0000 gs: e021 ss: e021 cs: e019 >(XEN) Guest stack trace from esp=c0321ed0: >(XEN) c0000004 00000003 c0115198 0001e019 00010246 00000000 00000000 00000000 >(XEN) c0000000 c0329aba c4000000 00001000 00000000 c02c0f68 c0321f94 00000000 >(XEN) 00000000 c0800000 c0496020 0002d800 c0329e15 c0496020 0000002b 00000000 >(XEN) c0321fa4 00000000 00000000 00000000 00000000 0002d800 00000000 00000004 >(XEN) 00000003 c0495018 00000800 00000000 c0495000 00000000 00001000 c032a214 >(XEN) c0495000 c0294a8d 00000001 00001000 c031f880 c0294a8d 00000001 c032a51b >(XEN) c02c0f40 003a1aff c031f880 c0326605 c02bf0ba c0100000 c0326bd8 c0321ff4 >(XEN) c0335f60 00000080 00000000 00000000 ffffe000 c0492000 00000000 ffffe000 >(XEN) c0492000 00000000 00000000 c0322827 c0321ff4 00000000 00000000 00000000 >(XEN) 00000000 c0347ec0 01020800 c0100066 >(XEN) Domain 3 (vcpu#0) crashed on cpu#1: >(XEN) CPU: 1 >(XEN) EIP: e019:[<c032c627>] >(XEN) EFLAGS: 00000202 CONTEXT: guest >(XEN) eax: 00000000 ebx: c1000000 ecx: 001f8008 edx: 00810020 >(XEN) esi: c049b000 edi: c1030000 ebp: 00001000 esp: c0321ed4 >(XEN) cr0: 8005003b cr3: 03b95000 >(XEN) ds: e021 es: e021 fs: 0000 gs: e021 ss: e021 cs: e019 >(XEN) Guest stack trace from esp=c0321ed4: >(XEN) c1030000 00000003 c032c627 0001e019 00010202 c049b000 0002d800 00001000 >(XEN) 00000023 ffffffff 0000007f 0002d800 00000001 00000811 00000000 01000000 >(XEN) 00000080 00810020 00001000 c032cbf9 c0355e30 00810020 00000080 01000000 >(XEN) c02de780 00000000 c0321f94 c032d374 c02de780 00810020 00000080 01000000 >(XEN) c02de780 c032d3c7 c02de780 00000000 00040800 c031f880 c0294a8d 00000000 >(XEN) c032d41c 00000000 c02de780 c0321f94 00000000 00000000 c032664c c0321f94 >(XEN) 0002d800 00000000 00013000 80000000 c0100000 c0326be2 c0321ff4 c0335f60 >(XEN) 00000080 00000000 00000000 ffffe000 c0492000 00000000 ffffe000 c0492000 >(XEN) 00000000 00000000 c0322827 c0321ff4 00000000 00000000 00000000 00000000 >(XEN) c0347ec0 01020800 c0100066 > > >------------------------------------------------------------------------ > >_______________________________________________ >Xen-devel mailing list >Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com >http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel > >_______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
David F Barrera wrote:> stoeni wrote: > >> hi, >> >> attached you find the xm dmesg output of my xen-unstable machine, >> first >> domU starts correct, second/third crashes (see log). >> >> dom0 and domU were both compiled with smp support (smt enabled) on a >> dual xeon 2.8. >> >> did i missed something at kernel configuration? >> >> > No. I reported this problem some time back and am still seeing it > daily: http://bugzilla.xensource.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=267 >Sounds like a critical bug. Is anybody taking a look at this? BTW, is this specific to PAE? Jun --- Intel Open Source Technology Center _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
Nakajima, Jun wrote:>David F Barrera wrote: > > >>stoeni wrote: >> >> >> >>>hi, >>> >>>attached you find the xm dmesg output of my xen-unstable machine, >>>first >>>domU starts correct, second/third crashes (see log). >>> >>>dom0 and domU were both compiled with smp support (smt enabled) on a >>>dual xeon 2.8. >>> >>>did i missed something at kernel configuration? >>> >>> >>> >>> >>No. I reported this problem some time back and am still seeing it >>daily: http://bugzilla.xensource.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=267 >> >> >> > >Sounds like a critical bug. Is anybody taking a look at this? BTW, is >this specific to PAE? > >I''ve only seen it on a PAE enabled box.> >Jun >--- >Intel Open Source Technology Center > >_______________________________________________ >Xen-devel mailing list >Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com >http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel > > >_______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
> >> attached you find the xm dmesg output of my xen-unstable machine, > >> first domU starts correct, second/third crashes (see log). > >> > >> dom0 and domU were both compiled with smp support (smt > enabled) on a > >> dual xeon 2.8. > >> > >> did i missed something at kernel configuration? > >> > >> > > No. I reported this problem some time back and am still seeing it > > daily: http://bugzilla.xensource.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=267 > > > > Sounds like a critical bug. Is anybody taking a look at this? > BTW, is this specific to PAE?It''s on our ''most critical'' list, but help is always appreciated. You need a machine with >= 4GB to repro it. xm-test can throw it up, but having a simpler repro recipe would be a big help There''s a ''vcpu crashed'' x86_64 issue too, though I forget the bug number. Ian _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
Ian Pratt wrote:>>>>attached you find the xm dmesg output of my xen-unstable machine, >>>>first domU starts correct, second/third crashes (see log). >>>> >>>>dom0 and domU were both compiled with smp support (smt >>>> >>>> >>enabled) on a >> >> >>>>dual xeon 2.8. >>>> >>>>did i missed something at kernel configuration? >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>No. I reported this problem some time back and am still seeing it >>>daily: http://bugzilla.xensource.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=267 >>> >>> >>> >>Sounds like a critical bug. Is anybody taking a look at this? >>BTW, is this specific to PAE? >> >> > >It''s on our ''most critical'' list, but help is always appreciated. You >need a machine with >= 4GB to repro it. xm-test can throw it up, but >having a simpler repro recipe would be a big help > >There''s a ''vcpu crashed'' x86_64 issue too, though I forget the bug >number. > >I have not seen it since last Friday. The defects is http://bugzilla.xensource.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=358>Ian > > >_______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
Ian Pratt wrote:>>>> attached you find the xm dmesg output of my xen-unstable machine, >>>> first domU starts correct, second/third crashes (see log). >>>> >>>> dom0 and domU were both compiled with smp support (smt enabled) on >>>> a dual xeon 2.8. >>>> >>>> did i missed something at kernel configuration? >>>> >>>> >>> No. I reported this problem some time back and am still seeing it >>> daily: http://bugzilla.xensource.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=267 >>> >> >> Sounds like a critical bug. Is anybody taking a look at this? >> BTW, is this specific to PAE? > > It''s on our ''most critical'' list, but help is always appreciated. You > need a machine with >= 4GB to repro it. xm-test can throw it up, but > having a simpler repro recipe would be a big help >Does this problem happen when creating multiple domUs _simultaneously_ (using xm-test) or happen even when making domUs sequentially (by hands)? Jun --- Intel Open Source Technology Center _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
Nakajima, Jun wrote:>Ian Pratt wrote: > > >>>>>attached you find the xm dmesg output of my xen-unstable machine, >>>>>first domU starts correct, second/third crashes (see log). >>>>> >>>>>dom0 and domU were both compiled with smp support (smt enabled) on >>>>>a dual xeon 2.8. >>>>> >>>>>did i missed something at kernel configuration? >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>No. I reported this problem some time back and am still seeing it >>>>daily: http://bugzilla.xensource.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=267 >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>Sounds like a critical bug. Is anybody taking a look at this? >>>BTW, is this specific to PAE? >>> >>> >>It''s on our ''most critical'' list, but help is always appreciated. You >>need a machine with >= 4GB to repro it. xm-test can throw it up, but >>having a simpler repro recipe would be a big help >> >> >> > >Does this problem happen when creating multiple domUs _simultaneously_ >(using xm-test) or happen even when making domUs sequentially (by >hands)? > >I see it daily when running xm-test. Yesterday, however, I saw it for the first time with only one guest domain running. Because there was yet another problem (http://bugzilla.xensource.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=390), I could not tell whether they were related--I now believe they are not. At any rate, that is probably the only other time I''ve seen it, and I have not been able to replicate that situation. Xm-test recreates it consistently, though.>Jun >--- >Intel Open Source Technology Center > >_______________________________________________ >Xen-devel mailing list >Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com >http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel > > >-- Regards, David F Barrera Linux Technology Center Systems and Technology Group, IBM "The wisest men follow their own direction. " Euripides _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
David F Barrera wrote:> > > Nakajima, Jun wrote: > >> David F Barrera wrote: >> >> >>> stoeni wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>>> hi, >>>> >>>> attached you find the xm dmesg output of my xen-unstable machine, >>>> first domU starts correct, second/third crashes (see log). >>>> >>>> dom0 and domU were both compiled with smp support (smt enabled) on a >>>> dual xeon 2.8. >>>> >>>> did i missed something at kernel configuration? >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> No. I reported this problem some time back and am still seeing it >>> daily: http://bugzilla.xensource.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=267 >>> >>> >> >> >> Sounds like a critical bug. Is anybody taking a look at this? BTW, is >> this specific to PAE? >> > I''ve only seen it on a PAE enabled box.To clarify a bit more, if I build Xen on the same machine without PAE enabled, I do not see the problem. Further, the xm-test failures are due to this problem: Platform | PASS | FAIL | XPASS | XFAIL | ---------------------+------+------+-------+-------+ x335sles9_pae4gb | 65 | 26 | 0 | 1 | <==============PAE enabled results ... x335sles9_pae4gb | 87 | 2 | 1 | 0 | <========== Same machine, non-PAE.> >> >> Jun >> --- >> Intel Open Source Technology Center >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Xen-devel mailing list >> Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com >> http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel >> >> >> > > > _______________________________________________ > Xen-devel mailing list > Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com > http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel >-- Regards, David F Barrera Linux Technology Center Systems and Technology Group, IBM "The wisest men follow their own direction. " Euripides _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
Nakajima, Jun schrieb:> Ian Pratt wrote: > >>>>>attached you find the xm dmesg output of my xen-unstable machine, >>>>>first domU starts correct, second/third crashes (see log). >>>>> >>>>>dom0 and domU were both compiled with smp support (smt enabled) on >>>>>a dual xeon 2.8. >>>>> >>>>>did i missed something at kernel configuration? >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>>No. I reported this problem some time back and am still seeing it >>>>daily: http://bugzilla.xensource.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=267 >>>> >>> >>>Sounds like a critical bug. Is anybody taking a look at this? >>>BTW, is this specific to PAE? >> >>It''s on our ''most critical'' list, but help is always appreciated. You >>need a machine with >= 4GB to repro it. xm-test can throw it up, but >>having a simpler repro recipe would be a big help >> > > > Does this problem happen when creating multiple domUs _simultaneously_ > (using xm-test) or happen even when making domUs sequentially (by > hands)?sequentially, started first domU by hand, the next etc. tried a reboot and same crashes while starting the init scripts. xm-test was not used. this machine has physically 6gb ram. how can i help you tracking this down? -- Tschaw/2, Stoeni! ++ Please remember: rm -rf means "read mail -really fast" ++ _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 hi, i tried the unstable sources from today (7715), with and without smp, same crashes on an 6GB PAE enabled build. anything i can contribute? - -- Tschaw/2, Stoeni! ++ Please remember: rm -rf means "read mail -really fast" ++ -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFDc6lfjhe+lWpwo40RAgDCAKC8/HbARlquyfe0wDzyqH2LN74RkACgmYie A0fNI2S7uCF2jF0G1pPRiB8=8BtA -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
On 10 Nov 2005, at 20:11, stoeni wrote:> i tried the unstable sources from today (7715), with and without smp, > same crashes on an 6GB PAE enabled build. > > anything i can contribute?Probably now fixed in our staging tree. :-) Expect the c/s to be in the public repository in an hour or two. -- Keir _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
keir, Keir Fraser schrieb:> On 10 Nov 2005, at 20:11, stoeni wrote: >> i tried the unstable sources from today (7715), with and without smp, >> same crashes on an 6GB PAE enabled build. >> >> anything i can contribute? > > > Probably now fixed in our staging tree. :-)great! you''ll get some feedback from me :)> Expect the c/s to be in the public repository in an hour or two.i''ll try it over the weekend, being a little bit busy these days. should i submit some traces/debug output (which?) if something crashes again? -- Tschaw/2, Stoeni! ++ Please remember: rm -rf means "read mail -really fast" ++ _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
dear developers, great, with changeset 7796 i''m now able to boot more than one domain on x86/32 smp with PAE (6GB) and networking :) maybe this was fixed earlier but no time to test everydays changeset. root@xlarge [tmp] # xm list Name ID Mem(MiB) VCPUs State Time(s) Domain-0 0 128 1 r----- 18.3 vm-temp 1 1024 1 -b---- 13.3 vm-temp1 2 1024 1 -b---- 12.9 vm-temp2 3 1024 1 -b---- 12.7 xm info shows me 6gb usable ramsize. i''ll check performance/features today, thanks for fixing :) keep on the good work!! -- Tschaw/2, Stoeni! ++ Please remember: rm -rf means "read mail -really fast" ++ _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel