Re: [Xen-devel] [xen-unstable test] 110009: regressions - FAIL

[Stefano Stabellini <sstabellini@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On Tue, 6 Jun 2017, Jan Beulich wrote:
> >>> On 06.06.17 at 16:00, <ian.jackson@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > Looking at the serial logs for that and comparing them with 10009,
> > it's not terribly easy to see what's going on because the kernel
> > versions are different and so produce different messages about xenbr0
> > (and I think may have a different bridge port management algorithm).
> > 
> > But the messages about promiscuous mode seem the same, and of course
> > promiscuous mode is controlled by userspace, rather than by the kernel
> > (so should be the same in both).
> > 
> > However, in the failed test we see extra messages about promis:
> > 
> >   Jun  5 13:37:08.353656 [ 2191.652079] device vif7.0-emu left promiscuous 
> > mode
> >   ...
> >   Jun  5 13:37:08.377571 [ 2191.675298] device vif7.0 left promiscuous mode
> 
> Wouldn't those be another result of the guest shutting down /
> being shut down?
> 
> > Also, the qemu log for the guest in the failure case says this:
> > 
> >   Log-dirty command enable
> >   Log-dirty: no command yet.
> >   reset requested in cpu_handle_ioreq.
> 
> So this would seem to call for instrumentation on the qemu side
> then, as the only path via which this can be initiated is - afaics -
> qemu_system_reset_request(), which doesn't have very many
> callers that could possibly be of interest here. Adding Stefano ...

I am pretty sure that those messages come from qemu traditional: "reset
requested in cpu_handle_ioreq" is not printed by qemu-xen.

In any case, the request comes from qemu_system_reset_request, which is
called by hw/acpi.c:pm_ioport_writew. It looks like the guest OS
initiated the reset (or resume)?

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