Re: [Xen-devel] Please revert / review 077fc1c04d70ef1748ac2daa6622b3320a1a004c

["Jan Beulich" <JBeulich@xxxxxxxx>]

>>> On 16.06.14 at 09:47, <yang.z.zhang@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Matthias wrote on 2014-06-12:
>> domain = 0, device id = 0x98, fault address = 0xffffffc0, flags = 0
>> (XEN) AMD-Vi: IO_PAGE_FAULT: domain = 0, device id = 0x90, fault 
>> address = 0xffffffc0, flags = 0
>> (XEN) AMD-Vi: IO_PAGE_FAULT: domain = 0, device id = 0x98, fault 
>> address = 0xffffffc0, flags = 0
>> (XEN) AMD-Vi: IO_PAGE_FAULT: domain = 0, device id = 0x90, fault 
>> address = 0xffffffc0, flags = 0
>> (XEN) AMD-Vi: IO_PAGE_FAULT: domain = 0, device id = 0x98, fault 
>> address = 0xffffffc0, flags = 0
>> (XEN) AMD-Vi: IO_PAGE_FAULT: domain = 0, device id = 0x90, fault 
>> address = 0xffffffc0, flags = 0
>> (XEN) AMD-Vi: IO_PAGE_FAULT: domain = 0, device id = 0x98, fault 
>> address = 0xffffffc0, flags = 0
>> (XEN) AMD-Vi: IO_PAGE_FAULT: domain = 0, device id = 0x90, fault 
>> address = 0xffffffc0, flags = 0
> 
> This is really strange. The fault shows it is caused by dom0's activity. But 
> the device have assigned to the guest. Are you sure the devices(00:13.0 and 
> 00:12.0) are hidden and dom0 is not using it? BTW, what are the devices of 
> 00:12.0 and 00:13.0?

It's not just that which is odd. The fault address is suspicious too;
I only ever saw such along with discovering what led to 6b4d71d0
("AMD IOMMU: don't free page table prematurely". Matthias - it
certainly wouldn't hurt if you included that fix in whatever you build
your hypervisor from (backports are already available in older trees).

Jan

Jan


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