[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] [Xen-devel] Re: [GIT PULL tip/x86/mm] xen/x86 fixes
On Wed, 16 Mar 2011, Yinghai Lu wrote: > On 03/16/2011 07:43 AM, Stefano Stabellini wrote: > > actually attach the logs :) > > > > On Wed, 16 Mar 2011, Stefano Stabellini wrote: > >> On Fri, 11 Mar 2011, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote: > >>> On Fri, Mar 11, 2011 at 01:17:23PM +0000, Stefano Stabellini wrote: > >>>> Hello, > >>>> recently we had a couple of long discussions with Yinghai about boot > >>>> crashes on xen, related to pagetable initialization. > >>>> As a result we came up with three patches, two of them fix the first [1] > >>>> boot crash and provide a nice cleanup on native: > >>> > >>> I don't know why this is happening now, but it could be very well > >>> related to the build config. Smaller builds don't seem to encounter this, > >>> while > >>> this is a distro type build. If I use: > >>> > >>>> Stefano Stabellini (1): > >>>> xen: set max_pfn_mapped to the last pfn mapped > >>> > >>> it hangs during bootup. The machine hangs during the box (no keyboard > >>> interaction) > >>> and I can see this in the bootup. > >> > >> Konrad sent me few other logs offline: log1 is the log of the hang and > >> log2 is a successful boot (reverting the problematic patch). > >> It looks like the SP5100 TCO WatchDog Timer Driver is using ioremap on > >> an address (0xb8fe00) that belongs to the memory range used for the > >> pagetable (0x9fc000-0xf43fff). > > Mar 15 16:09:04 phenom kernel: [ 0.000000] found SMP MP-table at > [ffff8800000ff780] ff780 > > Mar 15 16:09:04 phenom kernel: [ 0.000000] memblock_x86_reserve_range: > [0x000ff780-0x000ff78f] * MP-table mpf > > Mar 15 16:09:04 phenom kernel: [ 0.000000] memblock_x86_reserve_range: > [0x000fd240-0x000fd423] * MP-table mpc > > Mar 15 16:09:04 phenom kernel: [ 0.000000] memblock_x86_reserve_range: > [0x01cfd000-0x01d1c0e4] BRK > > Mar 15 16:09:04 phenom kernel: [ 0.000000] MEMBLOCK configuration: > > Mar 15 16:09:04 phenom kernel: [ 0.000000] memory size = 0x23fe39000 > > Mar 15 16:09:04 phenom kernel: [ 0.000000] memory.cnt = 0x3 > > Mar 15 16:09:04 phenom kernel: [ 0.000000] memory[0x0] > [0x00000000010000-0x0000000009afff], 0x8b000 bytes > > Mar 15 16:09:04 phenom kernel: [ 0.000000] memory[0x1] > [0x00000000100000-0x000000bffaffff], 0xbfeb0000 bytes > > Mar 15 16:09:04 phenom kernel: [ 0.000000] memory[0x2] > [0x00000100000000-0x0000027fefdfff], 0x17fefe000 bytes > > Mar 15 16:09:04 phenom kernel: [ 0.000000] reserved.cnt = 0x5 > > Mar 15 16:09:04 phenom kernel: [ 0.000000] reserved[0x0] > [0x000000000fd240-0x000000000fd423], 0x1e4 bytes > > Mar 15 16:09:04 phenom kernel: [ 0.000000] reserved[0x1] > [0x000000000ff780-0x000000000ff78f], 0x10 bytes > > Mar 15 16:09:04 phenom kernel: [ 0.000000] reserved[0x2] > [0x00000001000000-0x00000001d1c0e4], 0xd1c0e5 bytes > > Mar 15 16:09:04 phenom kernel: [ 0.000000] reserved[0x3] > [0x00000001e33000-0x00000016a36fff], 0x14c04000 bytes > > Mar 15 16:09:04 phenom kernel: [ 0.000000] reserved[0x4] > [0x000001f0f7e000-0x0000027fefdfff], 0x8ef80000 bytes > > Mar 15 16:09:04 phenom kernel: [ 0.000000] Scanning 0 areas for low memory > corruption > > Mar 15 16:09:04 phenom kernel: [ 0.000000] memblock_x86_reserve_range: > [0x00099000-0x0009afff] TRAMPOLINE > > Mar 15 16:09:04 phenom kernel: [ 0.000000] memblock_x86_reserve_range: > [0x00095000-0x00098fff] ACPI WAKEUP > > Mar 15 16:09:04 phenom kernel: [ 0.000000] init_memory_mapping: > 0000000000000000-00000000bffb0000 > > Mar 15 16:09:04 phenom kernel: [ 0.000000] DEBUG find_early_table_space: > _text=1000000 _end=1e33000 pgtable_start=9fc000 pgtable_end=9fc000 > > Mar 15 16:09:04 phenom kernel: [ 0.000000] memblock_x86_reserve_range: > [0x009fc000-0x00f43fff] PGTABLE > > e820 said that range is ram and usable. so it is right for memblock to use it. > > why TCO watchdog try to use ioremap with RAM? BIOS put wrong mmio in that > BAR? > > could do some sanitary check in that driver. > Yeah, I think the max_pfn_mapped patch might be exposing bugs in the drivers. Do you remember this patch: https://lkml.org/lkml/2011/2/4/60 would you be happy with it as a safer alternative? > also another question is why memblock_find return so low value, it should > return value just under 00000000bffb0000 > We are putting page-table high to make usable more continuous, instead of put > it just under 512M. That is because Konrad is testing without your page table high patch. I think that with the pagetable high patch most of these issues would go away on x86_64 but they would remain on x86_32. Thank you vert much for your quick reply! _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
|
Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our |