Re: crash in is_xen_swiotlb_buffer

[Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@oracle.com>]

On Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 10:34:38PM +0000, Goncalo Gomes wrote:
> On Tue, 13 Mar 2012, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
> 
> > On Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 07:09:17PM +0000, Goncalo Gomes wrote:
> > > On Tue, 13 Mar 2012, Goncalo Gomes wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Tue, 13 Mar 2012, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > > (XEN) mm.c:943:d0 Attempt to map superpage without allowsuperpage flag in hypervisor
> > > > > > [    0.000000] ------------[ cut here ]------------
> > > > > > [    0.000000] WARNING: at arch/x86/xen/multicalls.c:129 xen_mc_issue+0x34/0x62()
> > > > > > [    0.000000] Hardware name: PowerEdge R310
> > > > > > [    0.000000] Modules linked in:
> > > > > > [    0.000000] Pid: 0, comm: swapper Not tainted 3.2.9 #9
> > > > > > [    0.000000] Call Trace:
> > > > > > [    0.000000]  [<c104236b>] ? warn_slowpath_common+0x6a/0x7b
> > > > > > [    0.000000]  [<c1005442>] ? xen_mc_issue+0x34/0x62
> > > > > > [    0.000000]  [<c1042389>] ? warn_slowpath_null+0xd/0x10
> > > > > > [    0.000000]  [<c1005442>] ? xen_mc_issue+0x34/0x62
> > > > > > [    0.000000]  [<c1005f3b>] ? xen_set_pmd_hyper+0x3c/0x42
> > > > > > [    0.000000]  [<c102edbe>] ? set_pmd_pfn+0xde/0xf9
> > > > > > [    0.000000]  [<c168b652>] ? init_alloc_remap+0x1b3/0x216
> > > > > > [    0.000000]  [<c168aa48>] ? setup_node_data+0x4c/0x22f
> > > > > > [    0.000000]  [<c168b203>] ? T.744+0x290/0x2c2
> > > > > > [    0.000000]  [<c168b2ac>] ? T.743+0x77/0x1a1
> > > > > > [    0.000000]  [<c1025290>] ? default_get_apic_id+0x14/0x33
> > > > > > [    0.000000]  [<c168b3ed>] ? initmem_init+0x5/0xb7
> > > > > > [    0.000000]  [<c167cef4>] ? setup_arch+0x5bf/0x694
> > > > > > [    0.000000]  [<c100b840>] ? __spin_time_accum+0x26/0x36
> > > > > > [    0.000000]  [<c167852c>] ? start_kernel+0x81/0x34d
> > > > > > [    0.000000]  [<c167a258>] ? xen_start_kernel+0x554/0x55b
> > > > > > [    0.000000] ---[ end trace 4eaa2a86a8e2da22 ]---
> > > > >
> > > > > So this is first time I am seeing this. It looks like something in 3.2 -> 3.2.9
> > > > > is causing this. Can you do one more check - and just try booting the 3.2 virgin
> > > > > and seeing how it works?
> > > >
> > > > Sure, I'll try it once I have a chance.
> > >
> > > With 3.2.0 + 4.1.2, all it took was booting domain0
> > 
> > I am really perplexed. I just booted 4.1.2 + 3.2.9 and 3.2.0 and I had no trouble.
> > Can you send me your .config file please?
> 
> I can, see the attached config file1
> 
> > Oh wait, I am building 64-bit, you are doing 32-bit. Is your hypervisor 32-bit or
> > 64-bit?
> 
> It is 32bit, as is the remaining setup. Is this not a valid 
> configuration?

It is. I just did a compile as well with 32-bit and I am not seeing the
issues.. Must be something with the .config.