Mailing List Archive

Move the code for the XENMEM_add_to_physmap case into it's own
function (xenmem_add_to_physmap).

Signed-off-by: Jean Guyader <jean.guyader@eu.citrix.com>
---
xen/arch/x86/mm.c | 161 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------------------------
1 files changed, 87 insertions(+), 74 deletions(-)

On Wed, Nov 16, Jean Guyader wrote:

> Move the code for the XENMEM_add_to_physmap case into it's own
> function (xenmem_add_to_physmap).

This changeset 24163:7a9a1261a6b0 seems to cause the current testsuite failures.
(XEN) Assertion '!in_atomic()' failed at softirq.c:61

preempt_count is like fffffc52 or fffffc00 in my testing.

Olaf

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

On 19/11/2011 21:58, "Olaf Hering" <olaf@aepfle.de> wrote:

> On Wed, Nov 16, Jean Guyader wrote:
>
>> Move the code for the XENMEM_add_to_physmap case into it's own
>> function (xenmem_add_to_physmap).
>
> This changeset 24163:7a9a1261a6b0 seems to cause the current testsuite
> failures.
> (XEN) Assertion '!in_atomic()' failed at softirq.c:61
>
> preempt_count is like fffffc52 or fffffc00 in my testing.

Thanks, hopefully fixed by c/s 24167.

-- keir

> Olaf



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

On 19 November 2011 14:14, Keir Fraser <keir.xen@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 19/11/2011 21:58, "Olaf Hering" <olaf@aepfle.de> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Nov 16, Jean Guyader wrote:
>>
>>> Move the code for the XENMEM_add_to_physmap case into it's own
>>> function (xenmem_add_to_physmap).
>>
>> This changeset 24163:7a9a1261a6b0 seems to cause the current testsuite
>> failures.
>> (XEN) Assertion '!in_atomic()' failed at softirq.c:61
>>
>> preempt_count is like fffffc52 or fffffc00 in my testing.
>
> Thanks, hopefully fixed by c/s 24167.
>

Thanks, sorry about that.

Jean

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

On Sat, Nov 19, Keir Fraser wrote:

> On 19/11/2011 21:58, "Olaf Hering" <olaf@aepfle.de> wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Nov 16, Jean Guyader wrote:
> >
> >> Move the code for the XENMEM_add_to_physmap case into it's own
> >> function (xenmem_add_to_physmap).
> >
> > This changeset 24163:7a9a1261a6b0 seems to cause the current testsuite
> > failures.
> > (XEN) Assertion '!in_atomic()' failed at softirq.c:61
> >
> > preempt_count is like fffffc52 or fffffc00 in my testing.
>
> Thanks, hopefully fixed by c/s 24167.

Yes, the ASSERT does not trigger anymore.

The remaining issue is this:

Nov 20 06:21:11.744519 (XEN) hvm.c:2312:d1 guest attempted write to read-only memory page. gfn=0xc0, mfn=0x201979

See
http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~xensrcts/logs/9893/test-amd64-i386-rhel6hvm-amd/serial-potato-beetle.log

Olaf

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

On 20/11/2011 13:25, "Olaf Hering" <olaf@aepfle.de> wrote:

> On Sat, Nov 19, Keir Fraser wrote:
>
>> On 19/11/2011 21:58, "Olaf Hering" <olaf@aepfle.de> wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, Nov 16, Jean Guyader wrote:
>>>
>>>> Move the code for the XENMEM_add_to_physmap case into it's own
>>>> function (xenmem_add_to_physmap).
>>>
>>> This changeset 24163:7a9a1261a6b0 seems to cause the current testsuite
>>> failures.
>>> (XEN) Assertion '!in_atomic()' failed at softirq.c:61
>>>
>>> preempt_count is like fffffc52 or fffffc00 in my testing.
>>
>> Thanks, hopefully fixed by c/s 24167.
>
> Yes, the ASSERT does not trigger anymore.
>
> The remaining issue is this:
>
> Nov 20 06:21:11.744519 (XEN) hvm.c:2312:d1 guest attempted write to read-only
> memory page. gfn=0xc0, mfn=0x201979

Is that new behaviour? It may be unrelated to whatever HVM test failure
we're seeing, or else be a mere symptom of a guest gone haywire for other
reasons (we write-protect that memory range because it is supposed to be
ROM).

-- Keir

> See
> http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~xensrcts/logs/9893/test-amd64-i386-rhel6hvm
> -amd/serial-potato-beetle.log
>
> Olaf



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

On Sun, Nov 20, Keir Fraser wrote:

> > Nov 20 06:21:11.744519 (XEN) hvm.c:2312:d1 guest attempted write to read-only
> > memory page. gfn=0xc0, mfn=0x201979
>
> Is that new behaviour? It may be unrelated to whatever HVM test failure
> we're seeing, or else be a mere symptom of a guest gone haywire for other
> reasons (we write-protect that memory range because it is supposed to be
> ROM).

The message does not trigger with changeset 24162, but it does with
24167.

Olaf

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