From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Arun Sharma <arun.sharma@intel.com>
Subject: Re: Re: Should shadow_lock be spin_lock_recursive?
Date: Fri, 13 May 2005 15:40:30 -0700
Message-ID: <42852CDE.7000204@intel.com>
References: <E1DWDHb-0005Pi-00@mta1.cl.cam.ac.uk>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Return-path: <xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com>
In-Reply-To: <E1DWDHb-0005Pi-00@mta1.cl.cam.ac.uk>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.xensource.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>,
	<mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:xen-devel@lists.xensource.com>
List-Help: <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.xensource.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>,
	<mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=subscribe>
Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com
Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com
To: Michael A Fetterman <Michael.Fetterman@cl.cam.ac.uk>
Cc: "Ling, Xiaofeng" <xiaofeng.ling@intel.com>, xen-devel@lists.xensource.com
List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org

Michael A Fetterman wrote:
> 
> However, those calls to put_page(X) should never result in calls
> to free_domheap_pages(), as X's refcount should always be >= 1
> because of the get_page performed in free_dom_mem().
> 
> So that tells me the refcount on X was already broken before we got
> here...
> 

Thanks for the explanation. It was a patched xen that we were testing 
and the problem may have been caused by our patch. We'll try to look 
closely at the patch to figure out why the refrence counts were wrong.

	-Arun