[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: xl dmesg buffer too small for Xen 4.18?
- To: Julien Grall <julien@xxxxxxx>
- From: Roger Pau Monné <roger.pau@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2023 09:02:39 +0200
- Arc-authentication-results: i=1; mx.microsoft.com 1; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=citrix.com; dmarc=pass action=none header.from=citrix.com; dkim=pass header.d=citrix.com; arc=none
- Arc-message-signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=microsoft.com; s=arcselector9901; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-AntiSpam-MessageData-ChunkCount:X-MS-Exchange-AntiSpam-MessageData-0:X-MS-Exchange-AntiSpam-MessageData-1; bh=SPisFVdhO2HGopvLpB0Hry/neJdRmM/hWa6wto5vS4I=; b=Npws00C2lVz25iaNYO+mLyleELlLUj0grJkKAQHIK3Wz5HHlRCNhddHFk+IHOe1cn2WwCZ0XlBY0hS/9ex01QRY9JH6kaJrpmEybvWydscZ3RlZRVXGv1TjeY29X7TnhTbf063t0oucsXwweo5K+qmT+tATPxpbs5aTKt7u6EK/bFA1RnxgCZ6O/99XzK3OmIO+aQCtBKPxk8vqedgzaYDH03wHRwLV2mQoh24imna8mYwVa6UoUf2jP22hI4841gZ1fAlYrlg4AyU1szUIx6TkyWODLCKFsQ6oBd/8klY6j80pxiOQOcUwWrChCnH6mTRijhyvces9CVPUy4f03yw==
- Arc-seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; s=arcselector9901; d=microsoft.com; cv=none; b=a1lB7WyrD4RspAKGZlsia/nmBOJZczFnSiiap/26NQDs/+XKJYGdV+GH39TJ4I+Nhl9iS1Zy6BVmP/HnwY52x/aoFQKkzFmM8GXghMnArSpiKnyz0rfB1ppE44yEwZp6+8ajzFuKeDLb/3I7MT28hlfABWOHktOlCq2O+QQT2OeXNCGSLJTJseaAgLw3DgLpP72n9dv4gq/qNCBrQ8Nmt6tqnsdqcuwDtpSZD9fVS8C1Y+lJrNGFisg/nuqyCYnWjD27LtiRbFIZBiNvjUz5uTphkkUlEgARJiUSfbofG1yMWXTKOWV6eYbajnGIIJhWqtVoWg6PE3gMJwGmb7uMSQ==
- Authentication-results: dkim=none (message not signed) header.d=none;dmarc=none action=none header.from=citrix.com;
- Cc: Chuck Zmudzinski <brchuckz@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, "xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Delivery-date: Tue, 19 Sep 2023 07:03:11 +0000
- Ironport-data: A9a23:td2u0qsR88XT/WEdUkVaXT4KDOfnVHhfMUV32f8akzHdYApBsoF/q tZmKWyPP/qDNDP2Ltl3O4Tk9BxS7JfTx4IwGVZtrHw2QiIV+JbJXdiXEBz9bniYRiHhoOCLz O1FM4Wdc5pkJpP4jk3wWlQ0hSAkjclkfpKlVaicfHg3HFc4IMsYoUoLs/YjhYJ1isSODQqIu Nfjy+XSI1bg0DNvWo4uw/vrRChH4rKq4lv0gnRkPaoQ5A6HxiFMZH4iDfrZw0XQE9E88tGSH 44v/JnhlkvF8hEkDM+Sk7qTWiXmlZaLYGBiIlIPM0STqkAqSh4ai87XB9JFAatjsB2bnsgZ9 Tl4ncfYpTHFnEH7sL91vxFwS0mSNEDdkVPNCSDXXce7lyUqf5ZwqhnH4Y5f0YAwo45K7W9yG fMwFm4NYhXE2sSM5qugY7Bgm/QpF8zgM9ZK0p1g5Wmx4fcOZ7nmGvyPyfoGmTA6i4ZJAOrUY NcfZXx3dhPcbhZTO1ARTpUjgOOvgXq5eDpdwL6XjfNvvy6Pk0osj/60b4K9lt+iHK25mm6Co W3L5SLhCwwyP92D0zuVtHmrg4cjmAuiAttNTOfjqK8CbFu7n3I6URQIDUeAs7qHkkPlZ9F5G lwT9X97xUQ13AnxJjXnZDW6vXqFsxg0S9dWVeog52mlwLDf4xuSBXosSDNdc9cvrMJwQzE2v neZktWsCTFxvbm9TXOG6qzSvT60ITISL2IJeWkDVwRt3jX4iIQ6jxaKQtM9Fqew14TxAWupn GjMqzUijbIOi8JNz7+84V3MnzOroN7OUxIx4QLUGGmi62uVebKYWmBh0nCDhd4oEWpTZgDpU KQs8yRG0N0zMA==
- Ironport-hdrordr: A9a23:zcXkqaBmwLVmvmPlHel/55DYdb4zR+YMi2TDtnoBMCC9F/bzqy nAppQmPHPP+VEssRIb9+xoWpPwJE80nKQdieIs1NyZLW3bUQWTXedfBEjZrwEI2ReSygeQ78 hdWpk7L9vsDVd7h87m4A++Cb8bsbq62ZHtouHCz3hsRwl2a6dm9UNTDBqdGEEzZA5IA/MCZf ihDwN8xgadRQ==
- List-id: Xen developer discussion <xen-devel.lists.xenproject.org>
On Mon, Sep 18, 2023 at 07:49:26PM +0100, Julien Grall wrote:
> (+Roger and moving to xen-devel)
>
> Hi,
>
> On 18/09/2023 19:17, Chuck Zmudzinski wrote:
> > On 9/18/2023 9:00 AM, Chuck Zmudzinski wrote:
> > > Hello,
> > >
> > > I tested Xen 4.18~rc0 on Alma Linux 9 and my first tests indicate it
> > > works fine for starting the guests I manage but I notice that immediately
> > > after boot and with only dom0 running on the system, I get:
> > >
> > > [user@Malmalinux ~]$ sudo xl dmesg
> > > 00bee72000-00000bee72fff type=7 attr=000000000000000f
> > > (XEN) 00000bee73000-00000bef49fff type=4 attr=000000000000000f
> > > (XEN) 00000bef4a000-00000bef4bfff type=7 attr=000000000000000f
> > > (XEN) 00000bef4c000-00000befbafff type=4 attr=000000000000000f
> > > (XEN) 00000befbb000-00000befbbfff type=7 attr=000000000000000f
> > > ...
> > >
> > > I have noticed the buffer fills up quickly on earlier Xen versions, but
> > > never have I seen it fill up during boot and with only dom0 running.
> > >
> > > Can increasing the buffer fix this? How would one do that?
> > >
> > > Thanks
> > >
> >
> > I see the setting is the command line option conring_size:
> >
> > https://xenbits.xen.org/docs/unstable/misc/xen-command-line.html#conring_size
> >
> > The default is 16k, I tried 48k and that was big enough to capture all the
> > messages at boot for 4.18 rc0. This is probably not an issue if the release
> > candidate is being more verbose than the actual release will be. But if the
> > release is still this verbose, maybe the default of 16k should be increased.
>
> Thanks for the report. This remind me the series [1] from Roger which tries
> to increase the default size to 32K. @Roger, I am wondering if we should
> revive it?
I think the relevant patch (2/2) will still apply as-is, it's just a
Kconfig one line change. I'm however thinking it might be better to
bump it even further, to 128K. From a system point of view it's still
a very small amount of memory.
I'm happy to repost with an increased buffer size, but only if there's
someone willing to Ack it, otherwise it's not worth spending time on
it.
Thanks, Roger.
|
