On Thu, 2011-12-29 at 14:52 -0800, Alan Cox wrote:
On 12/29/2011 16:28, Sean Bruno wrote:
On Thu, 2011-12-29 at 12:22 -0800, Alan Cox wrote:
Please try this patch. It eliminates a race condition that might
actually account for some of the crashes in FreeBSD= 9 on Xen.
Alan
Please try this patch. It eliminates a race condition that might
actually account for some of the crashes in FreeBSD = 9 on Xen.
Alan
Index: i386/xen/pmap.c
===
--- i386/xen/pmap.c (revision 228935)
+++ i386/xen/pmap.c
On Thu, 2011-12-29 at 12:22 -0800, Alan Cox wrote:
Please try this patch. It eliminates a race condition that might
actually account for some of the crashes in FreeBSD = 9 on Xen.
Alan
ref10-xen32.freebsd.org has this applied now. Looks ok to me?
Sean
On Tue, 2011-12-27 at 22:14 -0800, Adrian Chadd wrote:
On 27 December 2011 15:24, Sean Bruno sean...@yahoo-inc.com wrote:
Initial testing looks ok from here. Single CPU PV DomU is up and
running as ref10-xen32.f.o if you want to poke around at all.
I'm updating the HVM enabled
wrote:
Date: Wed, 28 Dec 2011 04:47:40 -0800
From: Sean Bruno sean...@yahoo-inc.com
To: Adrian Chadd adr...@freebsd.org
Cc: x...@freebsd.org x...@freebsd.org, Alan Cox a...@rice.edu
Subject: Re: PV i386 patch
On Tue, 2011-12-27 at 22:14 -0800, Adrian Chadd wrote:
On 27 December 2011 15:24, Sean
On Tue, 2011-12-27 at 09:40 -0800, Alan Cox wrote:
On 12/23/2011 16:25, Sean Bruno wrote:
On Wed, 2011-12-21 at 12:47 -0800, Alan Cox wrote:
Can you please try the attached patch? I'm trying to reduce the number
of differences between the native and Xen pmap implementations.
Alan
On 27 December 2011 15:24, Sean Bruno sean...@yahoo-inc.com wrote:
Initial testing looks ok from here. Single CPU PV DomU is up and
running as ref10-xen32.f.o if you want to poke around at all.
I'm updating the HVM enabled ref10-xen64.f.o as well to check it out.
Since I don't yet have my
On 21 December 2011 12:47, Alan Cox a...@rice.edu wrote:
Can you please try the attached patch? I'm trying to reduce the number of
differences between the native and Xen pmap implementations.
Hi,
When I last tinkered with Xen, I noticed that it was _very_ easy to
end up with FS corruption by
On Wed, 2011-12-21 at 12:47 -0800, Alan Cox wrote:
Can you please try the attached patch? I'm trying to reduce the number
of differences between the native and Xen pmap implementations.
Alan
I will test this today, this should apply against 9 and -current ?
Sean
On Tue, 2011-12-20 at 10:49 -0800, Alan Cox wrote:
On 12/20/2011 07:28, Sean Bruno wrote:
The code that panics shouldn't even exist in the Xen pmap. Try the
attached patch.
Alan
Indeed how on earth did we ever use this stuff? :-)
Tested to 2G on ref9-xen32.f.o should I
On 12/20/2011 13:57, Sean Bruno wrote:
On Tue, 2011-12-20 at 10:49 -0800, Alan Cox wrote:
On 12/20/2011 07:28, Sean Bruno wrote:
The code that panics shouldn't even exist in the Xen pmap. Try the
attached patch.
Alan
Indeed how on earth did we ever use this stuff? :-)
Tested to 2G
On 12/20/11 10:49, Alan Cox wrote:
Do either of you know if there is a PR in gnats for this 768 MB limitation bug
that I should mention in the commit log?
The only one I'm aware of is kern/153789.
--
Colin Percival
Security Officer, FreeBSD | freebsd.org | The power to serve
Founder / author,
On Sat, 2011-12-17 at 18:01 -0800, Colin Percival wrote:
On 12/17/11 16:56, Sean Bruno wrote:
This seems happy on our ref9 VMs. I don't suppose this means I can go
above 768M of Ram now?
Can't hurt to try... whatever the problem is with our code and large
amounts of RAM, the fact that
On 12/17/2011 18:56, Sean Bruno wrote:
On Fri, 2011-12-16 at 11:32 -0800, Alan Cox wrote:
Is anyone here actively working on fixing problems with SMP support
under PV i386? While doing some other maintenance on the
vm_page_alloc() callers in the source tree, I happened to take a look at
On Fri, 2011-12-16 at 11:32 -0800, Alan Cox wrote:
Is anyone here actively working on fixing problems with SMP support
under PV i386? While doing some other maintenance on the
vm_page_alloc() callers in the source tree, I happened to take a look at
cpu_initialize_context() in mp_machdep.c.
On 12/17/11 16:56, Sean Bruno wrote:
This seems happy on our ref9 VMs. I don't suppose this means I can go
above 768M of Ram now?
Can't hurt to try... whatever the problem is with our code and large
amounts of RAM, the fact that it's an insta-panic during paging setup
suggests that it's
I'll test this out on the VMs in the fbsd cluster later.
Sean
On Fri, 2011-12-16 at 11:32 -0800, Alan Cox wrote:
Is anyone here actively working on fixing problems with SMP support
under PV i386? While doing some other maintenance on the
vm_page_alloc() callers in the source tree, I
17 matches
Mail list logo
