From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Dario Faggioli Subject: Re: Possible bug on ARM with irq passthrough Date: Wed, 5 Jul 2017 15:39:25 +0200 Message-ID: <1499261965.7486.12.camel@citrix.com> References: <067da1b2-66fa-d57d-f278-c020401d1533@arm.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============3444200659142965612==" Return-path: In-Reply-To: <067da1b2-66fa-d57d-f278-c020401d1533@arm.com> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org Sender: "Xen-devel" To: Julien Grall , Ivan =?UTF-8?Q?Pavi=C4=872?= , "xen-devel@lists.xen.org" , Stefano Stabellini List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org --===============3444200659142965612== Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="=-/uEPNmblRFksPp1WIHcM" --=-/uEPNmblRFksPp1WIHcM Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Wed, 2017-07-05 at 12:27 +0100, Julien Grall wrote: > On 04/07/17 21:20, Ivan Pavi=C4=872 wrote: > >=20 > > This is very strange because it doesn't happen with credit > > scheduler. This is output of xl dmesg: > >=20 > > (XEN) IRQ 64 is already used by domain 1 > >=20 > > Everything works first time but when I destroy domain and try to > > create again it fails. It works normally with credit scheduler. In > > dom-free-rtos.cfg: > > ... > > irqs =3D [64] > > .... >=20 > The Domain 1 still seems to be alive, you can confirm by via "xl > list".=C2=A0 > You said it works with credit but not credit2. I think you hit the > bug=C2=A0 > described in [1]. >=20 > Dario, do you have any status on this bug? > I have a patch in the works (different than the draft I sent you back then). It needs some more thinking and testing though, because I am still not sure it does the correct thing. As you may have noticed, in fact, the tracing work I've also been doing recently, includes adding tracing for RCUs. That was to help me understand what actually happen, how things should work and why they don't. I had to stop working on the patch and switch to other things during the last phases of 4.9 freeze and release, but I will get back to it right after the Summit. > I think we should consider it=C2=A0 > as a blocker for Xen 4.10. >=20 FWIW, I do agree. And I don't think there should be much problem fixing this on time for that. Regards, Dario --=20 <> (Raistlin Majere) ----------------------------------------------------------------- Dario Faggioli, Ph.D, http://about.me/dario.faggioli Senior Software Engineer, Citrix Systems R&D Ltd., Cambridge (UK) --=-/uEPNmblRFksPp1WIHcM Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2 iQIcBAABCAAGBQJZXOwOAAoJEBZCeImluHPuJ10P/jN2ui+wuQwuyIB1e4IUzt+I EX3PdOXYa9GeHtZeFUJEMtbhewNMSOEevaC/89du2Yk8bEyEsxEyoiIQ09ZFKxZJ IfaNNsWhAd0tdqIZcFMvfs5foUid+4cRyxPI0cD2Gixo9NaLVMAm/cBC4XHETJwJ gRS7brgytTTOdaKsW2tmEPda4Atdd7vtGfv6yAAgmS3aOmNdtmxsybEiZVshivQP VLs1ki0qJ4seAAovESihhT3k13sG6/ApCBFAhWadWmrXx71g+YZpevI1FMFeBEZD 01oVkr6nHTC2BhyDO7mmA33fZEWRALU0PWsIFYfabNeO7CE9PrcRe3pYZzM7pk3s woeH5lJ85xUZR5hJjUcZ7JRhf7XaMNDfEPwqKM0UeTe1MSqjQvPrZs0WaIqwOxab /iAhKOW/fcpR6A9BFhyeYD6qnNIFSSNwheiuzRbgkXPv6YEeOjqjMRmWjduGCnYp +IYsjgXFOalXfWxlDwip6zSLu0jFEnPLX9QyGuybBrMC0iku2mBUFS8mOSBFil5h ihYfCBo33hyIYXqHH1azTSi14uuoXDFvWcCW/c3E1gOfgOxh/HCS5NBO48B6/Ym1 MrUlVtG1+OEtK2TeLwoswobc3kAlBVnQWQ01/ktzDsBTgUe9h/Zk4N0wC1a/O983 hqktBMSKtsgOvYPewidn =pXPh -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-/uEPNmblRFksPp1WIHcM-- --===============3444200659142965612== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Content-Disposition: inline X19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX18KWGVuLWRldmVs IG1haWxpbmcgbGlzdApYZW4tZGV2ZWxAbGlzdHMueGVuLm9yZwpodHRwczovL2xpc3RzLnhlbi5v cmcveGVuLWRldmVsCg== --===============3444200659142965612==--