[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

RE: [Xen-ia64-devel] vcpu_translate: bad physical address:a000f00100cf0000


  • To: "Matthew Chapman" <matthewc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, <xen-ia64-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • From: "Magenheimer, Dan (HP Labs Fort Collins)" <dan.magenheimer@xxxxxx>
  • Date: Thu, 19 Jan 2006 07:08:44 -0800
  • Delivery-date: Thu, 19 Jan 2006 15:16:23 +0000
  • List-id: Discussion of the ia64 port of Xen <xen-ia64-devel.lists.xensource.com>
  • Thread-index: AcYc/OsmPDcW0vNwQOCEpONbn2qR3gADNoHg
  • Thread-topic: [Xen-ia64-devel] vcpu_translate: bad physical address:a000f00100cf0000

I haven't seen a failure this early in domain0 boot for
a long time.  One possible machine difference that I think
has come up before: Some machines zero memory as part of
boot/reset and others don't.  Maybe yours is not and this
is resulting in some uninitialized memory getting used,
which is harmless if it is zero?

I think Kevin suggested a patch a while back... I don't
recall offhand if that found its way into the tree.
Perhaps you can check? Or it might be a similar problem
elsewhere.

Dan

> -----Original Message-----
> From: xen-ia64-devel-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
> [mailto:xen-ia64-devel-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf 
> Of Matthew Chapman
> Sent: Thursday, January 19, 2006 6:33 AM
> To: xen-ia64-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: [Xen-ia64-devel] vcpu_translate: bad physical 
> address:a000f00100cf0000
> 
> The current Xen/ia64 tree doesn't work for me, Dom0 dies here:
> 
> Memory: 491056k/523264k available (11335k code, 31600k 
> reserved, 4831k data, 304k init)
> (XEN) vcpu_translate: bad physical address: a000f00100cf0000 
> @ a0000001000080d0 (kr7=000000000ccec000)
> [machine check]
> 
> The erroneous fault is in vhpt_miss while handling a region 5
> miss (the first, from ia64_patch_gate).  The address comes from:
> 
>   LOAD_PHYSICAL(p6, r19, swapper_pg_dir)
> 
> which is a movl which is patched into a physical address by
> ia64_patch_vtop.
> 
> The unpatched value is 0xa000000100cf0000, and it should have
> been patched to 0xccf0000.  Having added some debug output to
> ia64_patch_imm64, it seems that tpa produces the right value, and
> it tries to patch it.
> 
> However, something obviously goes wrong, since the address above
> is neither the unpatched address nor the intended physical
> address.
> 
> Anyone seen this before?
> 
> Matt
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Xen-ia64-devel mailing list
> Xen-ia64-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> http://lists.xensource.com/xen-ia64-devel
> 

_______________________________________________
Xen-ia64-devel mailing list
Xen-ia64-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-ia64-devel


 


Rackspace

Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our
servers 24x7x365 and backed by RackSpace's Fanatical Support®.