[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] AW: Re: [Xen-devel] Xen BUG in mm / Xen 4.0.1 with 2.6.32.18/21 pvops Kernel?
Forgot to attach the log, here it is: BR, Carsten. -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: Jan Beulich [mailto:JBeulich@xxxxxxxxxx] Gesendet: Mittwoch, 8. September 2010 14:51 An: Carsten Schiers Cc: xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Betreff: Re: [Xen-devel] Xen BUG in mm / Xen 4.0.1 with 2.6.32.18/21 pvops Kernel? >>> On 08.09.10 at 14:15, Carsten Schiers <carsten@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > (XEN) mm.c:860:d0 Error getting mfn 80000 (pfn 5555555555555555) from L1 > entry 8000000080000473 for l1e_owner=0, pg_owner=32753 DOMID_IO seen here generally means that Dom0 tried to map a page it doesn't own (likely because of your use of dom0_mem=). As the page really is a RAM one, Xen doesn't allow the access. Given that this apparently happens in the context of acpi_ex_system_memory_space_handler() you'd have to look at (or provide) your DSDT and SSDT(s) to see where this reference comes from. Very likely this is just a bogus reference, that you get away with on native, perhaps because this code in ioremap.c last_pfn = last_addr >> PAGE_SHIFT; for (pfn = phys_addr >> PAGE_SHIFT; pfn <= last_pfn; pfn++) { int is_ram = page_is_ram(pfn); if (is_ram && pfn_valid(pfn) && !PageReserved(pfn_to_page(pfn))) return NULL; WARN_ON_ONCE(is_ram); } should result in returning NULL there, while it wouldn't cover the situation under Xen. (While the code is meaningless under Xen in its current shape anyway, using dom0_mem= with a value above 2G should get you around the issue, as then PFN 0x80000 would be considered RAM there too.) Jan Attachment:
putty.log _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
|
Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our |