From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Wei Liu Subject: Re: [xen-unstable test] 64494: regressions - FAIL Date: Fri, 20 Nov 2015 15:23:45 +0000 Message-ID: <20151120152345.GA1495@citrix.com> References: <20151118144945.GA16306@citrix.com> <564DA35E.30802@suse.com> <1447929030.5647.33.camel@citrix.com> <564DB6DD.4020200@suse.com> <564F46C802000078000B73E9@prv-mh.provo.novell.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from mail6.bemta3.messagelabs.com ([195.245.230.39]) by lists.xen.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1ZznY1-0003Q9-SK for xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org; Fri, 20 Nov 2015 15:24:25 +0000 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <564F46C802000078000B73E9@prv-mh.provo.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: Juergen Gross , xen-devel , Wei Liu , Ian Campbell , osstest service owner List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org On Fri, Nov 20, 2015 at 08:14:00AM -0700, Jan Beulich wrote: > >>> On 19.11.15 at 12:47, wrote: > > On 19/11/15 11:30, Ian Campbell wrote: > >> On Thu, 2015-11-19 at 11:24 +0100, Juergen Gross wrote: > >>> On 18/11/15 15:49, Wei Liu wrote: > >>>> Hi Juergen > >>>> > >>>> Looks like there is something we missed after all. > >>>> > >>>> On Wed, Nov 18, 2015 at 02:31:57PM +0000, osstest service owner wrote: > >>>>> flight 64494 xen-unstable real [real] > >>>>> http://logs.test-lab.xenproject.org/osstest/logs/64494/ > >>>>> > >>>>> Regressions :-( > >>>>> > >>>>> Tests which did not succeed and are blocking, > >>>>> including tests which could not be run: > >>>> > >>>>> test-amd64-amd64-i386-pvgrub 10 guest-start fail REGR. > >>>>> vs. 64035 > >>>> > >>>> Nov 18 05:11:19.753014 (d2) Bootstrapping... > >>>> Nov 18 05:11:19.769108 (d2) Xen Minimal OS! > >>>> Nov 18 05:11:19.769134 (d2) start_info: 0xa13000(VA) > >>>> Nov 18 05:11:19.769158 (d2) nr_pages: 0x20000 > >>>> Nov 18 05:11:19.777046 (d2) shared_inf: 0xca1fc000(MA) > >>>> Nov 18 05:11:19.777072 (d2) pt_base: 0xa16000(VA) > >>>> Nov 18 05:11:19.785042 (d2) nr_pt_frames: 0xb > >>>> Nov 18 05:11:19.785077 (d2) mfn_list: 0x993000(VA) > >>>> Nov 18 05:11:19.785108 (d2) mod_start: 0x0(VA) > >>>> Nov 18 05:11:19.785135 (d2) mod_len: 0 > >>>> Nov 18 05:11:19.793047 (d2) flags: 0x0 > >>>> Nov 18 05:11:19.793077 (d2) cmd_line: (hd0,0)/boot/grub/menu.lst > >>>> Nov 18 05:11:19.793108 (d2) stack: 0x972580-0x992580 > >>>> Nov 18 05:11:19.801150 (d2) MM: Init > >>>> Nov 18 05:11:19.801181 (d2) _text: 0x0(VA) > >>>> Nov 18 05:11:19.801197 (d2) _etext: 0x7b22d(VA) > >>>> Nov 18 05:11:19.809104 (d2) _erodata: 0xa4000(VA) > >>>> Nov 18 05:11:19.809123 (d2) _edata: 0xa81a8(VA) > >>>> Nov 18 05:11:19.809138 (d2) stack start: 0x972580(VA) > >>>> Nov 18 05:11:19.817062 (d2) _end: 0x992b30(VA) > >>>> Nov 18 05:11:19.817099 (d2) start_pfn: a24 > >>>> Nov 18 05:11:19.817125 (d2) max_pfn: 20000 > >>>> Nov 18 05:11:19.825037 (d2) Mapping memory range 0x1000000 - 0x20000000 > >>>> Nov 18 05:11:19.825071 (d2) setting 0x0-0xa4000 readonly > >>>> Nov 18 05:11:19.825100 (d2) skipped 1000 > >>>> Nov 18 05:11:19.833049 (d2) MM: Initialise page allocator for > >>>> b1c000(b1c000)-20000000(20000000) > >>>> Nov 18 05:11:19.833089 (d2) Page fault at linear address c00008, eip > >>>> 5fc70, regs 0x98ff28, sp b1c000, our_sp 0x98fefc, code 2 > >>>> Nov 18 05:11:19.849044 (d2) Page fault in pagetable walk (access to > >>>> invalid memory?). > >>>> > >>>> The pvgrub in used is 32 bit. 64 bit (which I myself tested) seemed to > >>>> be working fine. > >>> > >>> Okay, I'm hitting this issue, too. I'll investigate further. > >> > >> Do we want to revert $something in the meantime? If so, what... > >> > > > > The problem is really located in pvgrub: > > One question I have here: Even if this gets fixed in pvgrub (or > mini-os, as it now seems), can we tolerate all existing mini-os > clones now being broken on -unstable (and hence then also > eventually on 4.7)? > I think all mini-os clones should pick up the change Juergen posted. It's mini-os having wrong assumption in the first place. Wei. > Jan >