Re: SOLVED: Re: [Xen-devel] Issue with pv_ops Kernel 2.6.31.6 and Xen [yinghai@xxxxxxxxxx: [PATCH 01/35] x86: fix sci on ioapic 1]

[Pasi Kärkkäinen <pasik@xxxxxx>]

On Wed, Feb 17, 2010 at 02:07:03PM -0500, Michael D Labriola wrote:
> xen-devel-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote on 02/17/2010 01:52:40 PM:
> 
> > On 02/17/2010 12:33 AM, Pasi Kärkkäinen wrote:
> > > On Tue, Feb 16, 2010 at 01:51:05PM -0800, Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote:
> > > 
> > >>>
> > >>> 
> > >>>> Question: Is it known when this piece of code will be introduced in 
> the
> > >>>> "pv_ops Kernel tree"?
> > >>>>
> > >>>> 
> > >>> Hmm.. Jeremy's plans are to re-base the pvops changes that went in
> > >>> 2.6.31.6 onto 2.6.32. The reason being that 2.6.32 has been choosen 
> by
> > >>> many distributions as their next vehicle for release. The patches 
> being
> > >>> mostly, if possible, related only to Xen.
> > >>>
> > >>> The patch I forwarded to you is targetted for 2.6.33 so it wouldnot 
> appear
> > >>> normally in 2.6.32 tree unles Greg KH choose to back-port it in. 
> Greg is
> > >>> the maintainer of the 2.6.32 stable tree.
> > >>>
> > >>> I would recommend you e-mail Greg KH with this e-mail, explain your
> > >>> situation  and ask him if he wouldn't mind merging the patch in.
> > >>> Thought you might need to do some of the work yourself
> > >>> (as in, merge the patch in an earlier kernel) - it seems you already
> > >>> have done this so hopefully that shouldn't be a problem.
> > >>>
> > >>> Try it that way, as this way also the distributions will pick up the 
> fix
> > >>> and you would be able to load any new distro on your box without 
> having
> > >>> to manually recompile the kernel and such.
> > >>>
> > >>> 
> > >> Is that one change enough to fix the reported problem?  Can we just
> > >> cherry-pick it over?  Or does it need a lot of supporting patches?
> > >>
> > >> 
> > >>> Then when Jeremy revs up the xen/next tree to next stable rev (I 
> think
> > >>> he will do this, not sure?), it will automatically be picked up 
> > (if Greg picks it up in his tree).
> > >>>
> > >>> 
> > >> Yes.  At the moment xen/next is based on plain 2.6.32 because that is
> > >> also an ancestor version of mainline git development.  Once the 
> 2.6.32
> > >> tree basically works (which should be close), then I can merge all 
> the
> > >> stable branch changes onto it and call it "xen/stable" or something.
> > >>
> > >> 
> > > So that means I should try xen/next now? :)
> > > 
> > 
> > Give it a go.  It boots OK for me, and I can start xend.  But I get 
> > domains hanging in pvgrub; I'm not sure blkback is working properly.  Or 
> 
> > it could be a tools issue...
> 
> Does this require Xen 4.0-rc or can I do some testing using my 3.4.2 
> installs?
> 

I believe xen/next uses the new APIC setup stuff, so it requires Xen 4.0.0
hypervisor. Correct? 

iirc earlier there was a patch on xen-devel to support the new APIC stuff with 
Xen 3.4 hypervisor.

Was it this patch?:
http://xenbits.xen.org/xen-3.4-testing.hg?rev/608ebc959c35

-- Pasi


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