From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk Subject: Re: Ping: Re: [PATCH] Boot PV guests with more than 128GB (v2) for 3.7 Date: Fri, 7 Sep 2012 09:39:47 -0400 Message-ID: <20120907133947.GD2870@phenom.dumpdata.com> References: <501A5EF7020000780009219C@nat28.tlf.novell.com> <20120802141710.GF16749@phenom.dumpdata.com> <20120802160403.02de484e@mantra.us.oracle.com> <20120803133001.GA13750@andromeda.dapyr.net> <501BF44602000078000928B4@nat28.tlf.novell.com> <5028CEE70200007800094623@nat28.tlf.novell.com> <50446B5402000078000981F4@nat28.tlf.novell.com> <20120906210323.GA303@phenom.dumpdata.com> <5049D4100200007800099A91@nat28.tlf.novell.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <5049D4100200007800099A91@nat28.tlf.novell.com> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org To: Jan Beulich Cc: Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk , xen-devel , konrad@darnok.org List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org On Fri, Sep 07, 2012 at 10:01:36AM +0100, Jan Beulich wrote: > >>> On 06.09.12 at 23:03, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote: > > On Mon, Sep 03, 2012 at 07:33:24AM +0100, Jan Beulich wrote: > >> >>> On 13.08.12 at 09:54, "Jan Beulich" wrote: > >> >>>> On 03.08.12 at 16:46, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote: > >> >> Didn't get to it yet. Sorry for top posting. If you have a patch ready I > >> >> can test it on Monday - travelling now. > >> > > >> > So here's what I was thinking of (compile tested only). > >> > >> Obviously, if this works, I'd like to see this included in 4.2 (and > >> 4.1-testing). > > > > No luck. I still get: > > > > (XEN) Pagetable walk from ffff8800443da070: > > (XEN) L4[0x110] = 0000009342f95067 0000000000001a0c > > (XEN) L3[0x001] = 0000000000000000 ffffffffffffffff > > And I can't see why. I wasn't able to track down the original > stack trace you saw on the archives - was that identical to > this one (i.e. nothing changed at all)? If so (please forgive It does look identical. > that I'm asking, I just know that I happen to fall into this trap > once in a while myself), did you indeed build and install the I know. I did double check - as I couldn't install wholesale the new RPM (owner of the box needed the old version of it), instead I did this bit of hack: xend stop cd /konrad rpmcpio xen-*konrad* | cpio -id tar -czvf /xen.orig.tgz /usr/lib64/*xen* rm -Rf /usr/lib64/*xen* mv /usr/lib/python2.4/site-packages/xen /usr/lib/python2.4/site-packages/xen.old ln -s /konrad/usr/lib/python2.4/site-packages/xen /usr/lib/python2.4/site-packages/xen export PATH=/konrad/usr/bin:/konrad/usr/sbin:$PATH export LD_LIBRARY_PATH=/konrad/usr/lib64 xend start xm create /konrad/test.xm Which _should_ have taken care of all in the toolstack. > patched tools? In that case, adding some logging to the code > in question is presumably the only alternative, short of > anyone else seeing anything further wrong with that code. That was my next thought too.. also that would verify that my hac^H^H^Hinstallation worked properly. > > Jan