From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jeremy Fitzhardinge Subject: Re: So I tried to use xentrace... Date: Fri, 07 May 2010 22:03:04 -0700 Message-ID: <4BE4F088.8040008@goop.org> References: <4BDB4CCC.3080405@goop.org> <4BE47F26.50904@goop.org> <4BE48332.6040209@eu.citrix.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <4BE48332.6040209@eu.citrix.com> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com To: George Dunlap Cc: Xen-devel , Keir Fraser List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org On 05/07/2010 02:16 PM, George Dunlap wrote: > Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote: >>>> (XEN) ----[ Xen-4.1-unstable x86_64 debug=y Not tainted ]---- >>>> (XEN) CPU: 1 >>>> (XEN) RIP: e008:[] check_lock+0x1b/0x45 >>>> >> >> This suggests the problem is with misusing a lock in the wrong interrupt >> context, rather than anything to do with sizes. >> > Except that, it works for me if I use -S 32, and doesn't if I use -S > 512 (on my 2-core box, equivalent # of pages to -S 256 on your 4-core > box). :-) Try it, I suspect it will work. Yes, it does. But I'm seeing some pretty odd things while xentrace is running: first time all my SATA drives stopped responding, and the second time my ethernet device started getting tx watchdog timeouts. Perhaps the large amount of IO caused by xentrace is causing other bugs to become apparent, but this has been an otherwise very stable system... J