[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] Re: [Xen-devel] Error booting Xen
On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 11:58 PM, Dario Faggioli <dario.faggioli@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Tue, 2016-01-26 at 23:32 +0530, Harmandeep Kaur wrote: >> Last time, I did absolutely nothing. System was idle >> and it crashed just after the login. Now, I booted the >> system again and this time, there is no reset. But, >> performance of the system is very slow. Browser >> (Mozilla Firefox) freezes a lot. Also, before applying >> patches, when I used to disabe xsave it resulted in >> same kind of performance issues. >> > Mmm... are you sure the performance is actually affected by "xsave=0", > and/or by Jan's patch? It's hard to check, as without at least one of > them the box does not boot, but I don't think the things (e.g., Firefox > freezing or not starting) are necessarily related. > > In particular, you have in your Xen boot parameters list, this item: > > "dom0_mem=1024M,max:1024M" > > This means that, in dom0, you will "only" have 1GB of RAM available. > And if you just login after boot and start Firefox, dom0 is where > Firefox is going to be running... and 1G, that Firefox will have to > share with the rest of Linux running as dom0, may be too few RAM for > it. And in fact, in your last log, we see this (from dom0, not from > Xen!): > > [ 851.644443] Out of memory: Kill process 1945 (firefox) score 325 or > sacrifice child > [ 851.644461] Killed process 1945 (firefox) total-vm:1228008kB, > anon-rss:305536kB, file-rss:0kB > > If you want to run a graphical environment on that test box, and browse > with Firefox, then you should increase the amount of RAM you allow dom0 > to use. When I suggested you to use 1024, I was assuming (given how > your work environment is setup) you were not going to do any such > thing. > Actually I didn't notice this performance issue before this xsave bug, maybe we added this line later on. Anyways I can now check this by increasing the memory. >> And the following >> is still present in the log. >> >> (XEN) traps.c:3290: GPF (0000): ffff82d0801c1cea -> ffff82d080252e5c >> (XEN) d1v1 fault#1: mxcsr=00001f80 >> (XEN) d1v1 xs=0000000000000003 xc=8000000000000000 >> (XEN) d1v1 r0=0000000000000000 r1=0000000000000000 >> (XEN) d1v1 r2=0000000000000000 r3=0000000000000000 >> (XEN) d1v1 r4=0000000000000000 r5=0000000000000000 >> (XEN) traps.c:3290: GPF (0000): ffff82d0801c1cea -> ffff82d080252e5c >> (XEN) d1v1 fault#2: mxcsr=00001f80 >> (XEN) d1v1 xs=0000000000000000 xc=0000000000000000 >> (XEN) d1v1 r0=0000000000000000 r1=0000000000000000 >> (XEN) d1v1 r2=0000000000000000 r3=0000000000000000 >> (XEN) d1v1 r4=0000000000000000 r5=0000000000000000 >> > Mmm... and this is with all Jan's patches applied? Yes, all three patches applied. > So, just to make sure we understand each others, you're saying that, > again with all patches applied, and with you not doing anything > significantly different between a) and b) below, the system either: > > a) crashes right after login, like this: http://paste2.org/KEAetMHb > > b) does not crash (you're even able to try starting Firefox), but Xen > produces the following output: http://paste2.org/C8WpyKOg > > Is this correct? Yes. And I tried to boot several times and around 70-80% of times system crashes right after the login as in case 'a'. Regards, Harmandeep > Regards, > Dario > -- > <<This happens because I choose it to happen!>> (Raistlin Majere) > ----------------------------------------------------------------- > Dario Faggioli, Ph.D, http://about.me/dario.faggioli > Senior Software Engineer, Citrix Systems R&D Ltd., Cambridge (UK) > _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
|
Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our |