Re: [Xen-devel] XEN 4.3.0 WINDOWS HVM 3GB RAM ISSUE

[Ian Campbell <ian.campbell@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On Tue, 2013-10-22 at 23:07 +0300, NiX wrote:
> Hello list!
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> The problem
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> Windows 7 64bit nor Windows 2008 R2 Enterprise Server 64bit is not
> starting with more than 3GB of RAM in HVM mode
> 
> As a reference:
> 
> Ubuntu 64-bit server is starting without any issue with 5GB of RAM on this
> server in HVM mode
> And all PV guest can use as much RAM as available when using 64bit linux.
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> System:
> > > CPU's: 2 x XEON X5450
> > > Motherboard: Intel Server Board S5000PSLSASR
> > > http://ark.intel.com/products/46544/Intel-Server-Board-S5000PSLSASR
> 
> > > RAM: 16GB DDR2 ECC
> > > Dom0 OS: Debian 7.0 64bit
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> xl create 10.100.12.10.cfg

Does "xl -vvv create <the rest>" produce anything extra?

> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> VM config
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[...]
> shadow_memory=8

Is there a reason you are overriding this instead of accepting the
default? I notice your xl dmesg has mention of running out of shadow
RAM, which might be related.
[...]
> (XEN) common.c:1598: d10 failed to allocate from shadow
> pool<G><2>memory.c:132:d0 Could not allocate order=9 extent: id=10
> memflags=0 (2 of 4)
> (XEN) printk: 11634 messages suppressed.

> (XEN) grant_table.c:350:d0 Bad flags (0) or dom (0). (expected dom 0)
> (XEN) common.c:1598: d11 failed to allocate from shadow
> pool<G><2>memory.c:132:d0 Could not allocate order=9 extent: id=11
> memflags=0 (2 of 4)
> (XEN) grant_table.c:350:d0 Bad flags (0) or dom (0). (expected dom 0)

This looks like the root cause of the failure which xl reported. I
wonder if this could be a dom0 kernel issue. What are you running there?
Some sort of custom kernel with the grsec patches perhaps? Can you try
without those to rule out an incompatiblity?

I'm not at all sure why the type of guest would be related to anything
of that type though. A failure during domain build time like you are
seeing is too soon to even know what kind of guest it is going to be.
Could there be any options which differ between the configuration files
for your working and non-working guests?

Ian.


_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel