From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Keir Fraser Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] Xen ARINC 653 Scheduler (updated to add support for CPU pools) Date: Thu, 24 Jun 2010 14:23:09 +0100 Message-ID: References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com To: Dan Magenheimer , Kathy Hadley , George Dunlap Cc: "xen-devel@lists.xensource.com" List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org Yes, one possibility here is that somehow you do not have xenconsoled running. You should 'ps auxw' in dom0 and check that xenstored and xenconsoled are both running. I now start xend with a little 'xenstored; xenconsoled; xend start' script. :-) -- Keir On 24/06/2010 14:08, "Dan Magenheimer" wrote: > Just a thought... > > With all the recent tool layer changes (involving udev, xend, > bridging etc), any chance that everything in the guest > is working just fine and everything in the hypervisor > is working just fine but the connections to the console > in your distro/configuration are not playing nicely with > the recent xen-unstable tool changes, so you just can't see > that everything (else) is fine? > > (if so, please support my recent rant against changes that > cause "unnecessary pain" ;-) > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Kathy Hadley [mailto:Kathy.Hadley@dornerworks.com] >> Sent: Thursday, June 24, 2010 6:54 AM >> To: Keir Fraser; George Dunlap >> Cc: xen-devel@lists.xensource.com >> Subject: RE: [Xen-devel] [PATCH 1/1] Xen ARINC 653 Scheduler (updated >> to add support for CPU pools) >> >> We are using the following set-up: >> Xen-unstable changeset 21650 >> Gentoo 2.6.29.6 with Xen patches for Dom0 >> Linux 2.6.18-Xen for DomU (downloaded from linux-2.6.18-xen.hg) >> >> Dom0 and DomU run fine with Xen-3.4.1 and Xen-4.0.0 (our scheduler or >> the credit scheduler). Dom0 appears to run fine with xen-unstable, but >> DomU "hangs" when our scheduler or the credit scheduler (as discussed >> in >> earlier e-mails). "xm list" shows that DomU is blocked. >> >> Do you have any suggestions for how I could troubleshoot this issue? >> I'm still wondering about the warning I'm seeing issued from traps.c - >> while it could have nothing to do with my issue, it is an interesting >> coincidence. >> >> Thanks, >> Kathy Hadley >> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Keir Fraser [mailto:keir.fraser@eu.citrix.com] >>> Sent: Wednesday, June 23, 2010 6:36 PM >>> To: Kathy Hadley; George Dunlap >>> Cc: xen-devel@lists.xensource.com >>> Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH 1/1] Xen ARINC 653 Scheduler (updated >>> to add support for CPU pools) >>> >>> I've just built latest xen-unstable.hg and linux-2.6.18-xen.hg and >>> booted a >>> domU just fine. All my builds are 64-bit though whereas yours are 32- >>> bit. I >>> suppose that could cause a difference (in particular, 32-bit >> hypervisor >>> is >>> less tested by people). >>> >>> -- Keir >>> >>> On 23/06/2010 22:16, "Kathy Hadley" >>> wrote: >>> >>>> Keir, >>>> I see this same behavior when I run the credit scheduler. It >>> doesn't >>>> look like it's localized to the scheduler I'm working on. I pulled >>> the >>>> latest code from http://xenbits.xensource.com/linux-2.6.18-xen.hg >> and >>>> rebuilt the kernel earlier today, with no effect. >>>> >>>> Note that I can successfully start the domain with Xen-3.4.1 and >>>> Xen-4.0.0, using the same configuration file as I am using with >>>> xen-unstable. >>>> >>>> Kathy >>>> >>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>> From: Keir Fraser [mailto:keir.fraser@eu.citrix.com] >>>>> Sent: Wednesday, June 23, 2010 4:23 PM >>>>> To: Kathy Hadley; George Dunlap >>>>> Cc: xen-devel@lists.xensource.com >>>>> Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH 1/1] Xen ARINC 653 Scheduler >>> (updated >>>>> to add support for CPU pools) >>>>> >>>>> On 23/06/2010 20:57, "Kathy Hadley" >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Call Trace: >>>>>> [] hypercall_page+0x3a7 <-- >>>>>> [] raw_safe_halt+0xa5 >>>>>> [] xen_idle+0x49 >>>>>> [] cpu_idle+0x8d >>>>>> [] start_kernel+0x3f5 >>>>>> [] do_early_param+0x80 >>>>>> >>>>>> Does this shed any light on the situation? >>>>> >>>>> Looks like you're in the idle loop. So, no, it doesn't really shed >>>> much >>>>> useful light. >>>>> >>>>> -- Keir >>>>> >>>> >>> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Xen-devel mailing list >> Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com >> http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel