RE: [Xen-devel] Second release candidate for Xen 3.4.0

["Tian, Kevin" <kevin.tian@xxxxxxxxx>]

>From: Keir Fraser
>Sent: 2009年4月17日 16:06
>
>On 17/04/2009 08:55, "Keir Fraser" <keir.fraser@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>> On 16/04/2009 18:09, "Dan Magenheimer" 
><dan.magenheimer@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> 
>>> FYI, I can still reproduce the "blocked for more than 480 seconds"
>>> problem I reported yesterday.  After running >2 hours of load,
>>> the 2.6.29 guest spews out a number of Call Trace's and freezes.
>>> Each is prefixed with:
>> 
>> Hmm could be the kernel I suppose. Or perhaps there's a time 
>issue lurking.
>
>And if the latter, the cpuidle stuff would still be most 
>likely culprit in
>my opinion. Did you repro problems with cpuidle=off?
>

I think Dan mentioned 'cpuidle=off' in his previous post, but of course
it's worthy of further confirmation about this option:

> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Dan Magenheimer 
> > Sent: Wednesday, April 15, 2009 8:59 AM
> > To: Dan Magenheimer; Keir Fraser; Xen-Devel (E-mail); Tian, Kevin
> > Subject: RE: [Xen-devel] Time goes backwards in dom0 in xen-unstable
> > 
> > 
> > Hmmm... after only a few minutes with cpuidle=off,
> > my test domPV froze up after printing a number of
> > call traces starting with:
> > 
> > INFO: task xxx:nnn blocked for more than 480 seconds.
> > 
> > At the top of all of the traces is either
> > getnstimeofday+51 or io_schedule+44.
> > 
> > (Note that this PV domain is a 2.6.29 kernel... don't
> > know if the messages are the same on an older kernel.)

Thanks,
Kevin

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