From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Tomasz Chmielewski Subject: Re: 2.6.38.1 general protection fault Date: Wed, 20 Apr 2011 12:54:33 +0200 Message-ID: <4DAEBB69.4010604@wpkg.org> References: <4D8C6110.6090204@wpkg.org> <4D8DAE94.7070604@redhat.com> <4D8DC307.7090400@wpkg.org> <4D8F068B.5030209@redhat.com> <4D902997.80004@wpkg.org> <4D9052B7.2070508@redhat.com> <20110328175437.GB12265@random.random> <4D90CD47.7010107@redhat.com> <20110328200401.GC12265@random.random> <4D90EC17.1080805@wpkg.org> <4DAEA72A.9080102@scripty.at> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: "kvm@vger.kernel.org" To: Thomas Treutner Return-path: Received: from mail.virtall.com ([178.63.195.102]:41733 "EHLO mail.virtall.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751153Ab1DTKyg (ORCPT ); Wed, 20 Apr 2011 06:54:36 -0400 In-Reply-To: <4DAEA72A.9080102@scripty.at> Sender: kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On 20.04.2011 11:28, Thomas Treutner wrote: > On 03/28/2011 10:14 PM, Tomasz Chmielewski wrote: >> On 28.03.2011 22:04, Andrea Arcangeli wrote: >> >>> Tomasz, how easily can you reproduce? >> >> Well, this server runs 10 VMs or so, and it happens after 1-2 days of >> uptime. >> >> I reverted now to a 2.6.35.x, as it had enough downtime with 2.6.38 >> already ;) so I'd rather not experiment anymore for some time with a >> kernel known to cause problems. > > Tomasz, to which exact kernel version (host+guests) did you switch and > is it now stable? I've switched the host to the latest 2.6.35.x and it's stable. Guest kernel doesn't seem to make a difference here, but majority of them are running 2.6.38.x kernel (had some weird issues with "events/0", taking 100% CPU on guests when I used 2.6.35, which made the guests crawling slow). -- Tomasz Chmielewski http://wpkg.org