From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Jan Beulich" Subject: RE: live migration fails (assert in shadow_hash_delete) Date: Fri, 26 Feb 2010 08:39:33 +0000 Message-ID: <4B8796D5020000780003170C@vpn.id2.novell.com> References: <20100223104613.GQ368@whitby.uk.xensource.com> <6CADD16F56BC954D8E28F3836FA7ED7128339AC12F@shzsmsx501.ccr.corp.intel.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Return-path: In-Reply-To: <6CADD16F56BC954D8E28F3836FA7ED7128339AC12F@shzsmsx501.ccr.corp.intel.com> Content-Disposition: inline List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com To: Jiajun Xu Cc: "xen-devel@lists.xensource.com" , Devdutt Patnaik , Tim Deegan , Ashish Bijlani , Ian Jackson , Keir Fraser List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org HVM with pv-ops? Seems irrelevant whether the kernel used in a hvm guest has pv-ops. The point is that HVM live migration appears to work fine (also according to our internal testing), just pv seems to be broken (and unfortunately with no consistent crash pattern). Jan >>> "Xu, Jiajun" 26.02.10 07:12 >>> Our normal testing covers local live migration testing for HVM with = Pv_ops. These cases can pass in Xen-4.0.0 RCx testing.=20 And I just now tried HVM live migration between two machines with xen c/s = 20964 and Pv_ops, it can work. > -----Original Message----- > From: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com=20 > [mailto:xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com] On Behalf Of Keir Fraser > Sent: Tuesday, February 23, 2010 7:00 PM > To: Tim Deegan; Devdutt Patnaik; Ian Jackson > Cc: Ashish Bijlani; xen-devel@lists.xensource.com=20 > Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] live migration fails (assert in shadow_hash_dele= te) >=20 > On 23/02/2010 10:46, "Tim Deegan" wrote: >=20 > > At 10:19 +0000 on 23 Feb (1266920353), Devdutt Patnaik wrote: > >> We just used the xen-unstable version from 2 weeks ago, and haven't = really > >> modified it. > >> We tried this with 64-bit versions of 2.6.31.6 and 2.6.32.8 DomU = kernels. > > > > OK. This really needs to be fixed to the 4.0 release. Keir, have we > > had any other testing on 64-bit PV live migrations? >=20 > Localhost migrations were just added to the automated tests. But I think > maybe they are trivially failing due to trying to do them via the 'xl' > interface, which doesn't support it(!). Ian? >=20 > In short, there's probably been little or no testing of live migration = in > the recent past, as I don't think Intel tests it either. >=20 > -- Keir >=20 >=20 >=20 > _______________________________________________ > Xen-devel mailing list > Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com=20 > http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel=20 _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com=20 http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel