On 11/10/2016 12:49 PM, David Vrabel wrote:
> On 10/11/16 17:47, Olaf Hering wrote:
>> On Thu, Nov 10, Boris Ostrovsky wrote:
>>
>>> Are you sure it's this patch that causes the failure?
>>>
>>> I commented out '| VM_IO' and still unable to boot with this option.
>> Yes, this works for me,
On 11/10/2016 12:49 PM, David Vrabel wrote:
> On 10/11/16 17:47, Olaf Hering wrote:
>> On Thu, Nov 10, Boris Ostrovsky wrote:
>>
>>> Are you sure it's this patch that causes the failure?
>>>
>>> I commented out '| VM_IO' and still unable to boot with this option.
>> Yes, this works for me,
On Thu, Nov 10, Boris Ostrovsky wrote:
> Are you sure it's this patch that causes the failure?
>
> I commented out '| VM_IO' and still unable to boot with this option.
Yes, this works for me, sles12sp2 dom0+domU, which is linux-4.4 based:
+++ b/drivers/xen/gntdev.c
@@ -804,7 +804,7 @@ static
On 10/11/16 17:47, Olaf Hering wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 10, Boris Ostrovsky wrote:
>
>> Are you sure it's this patch that causes the failure?
>>
>> I commented out '| VM_IO' and still unable to boot with this option.
>
> Yes, this works for me, sles12sp2 dom0+domU, which is linux-4.4 based:
>
> +++
On Thu, Nov 10, Boris Ostrovsky wrote:
> Are you sure it's this patch that causes the failure?
>
> I commented out '| VM_IO' and still unable to boot with this option.
Yes, this works for me, sles12sp2 dom0+domU, which is linux-4.4 based:
+++ b/drivers/xen/gntdev.c
@@ -804,7 +804,7 @@ static
On 10/11/16 17:47, Olaf Hering wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 10, Boris Ostrovsky wrote:
>
>> Are you sure it's this patch that causes the failure?
>>
>> I commented out '| VM_IO' and still unable to boot with this option.
>
> Yes, this works for me, sles12sp2 dom0+domU, which is linux-4.4 based:
>
> +++
On 11/10/2016 11:42 AM, Olaf Hering wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 10, Boris Ostrovsky wrote:
>
>> Is this something new? Because this patch has been there for a year.
> It was just tested now, cycling through all the combinations for a
> disk=[]. Removing "direct-is-save" will use different code paths and
On 11/10/2016 11:42 AM, Olaf Hering wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 10, Boris Ostrovsky wrote:
>
>> Is this something new? Because this patch has been there for a year.
> It was just tested now, cycling through all the combinations for a
> disk=[]. Removing "direct-is-save" will use different code paths and
On Thu, Nov 10, Boris Ostrovsky wrote:
> Is this something new? Because this patch has been there for a year.
It was just tested now, cycling through all the combinations for a
disk=[]. Removing "direct-is-save" will use different code paths and the
error is not seen.
Olaf
signature.asc
On Thu, Nov 10, Boris Ostrovsky wrote:
> Is this something new? Because this patch has been there for a year.
It was just tested now, cycling through all the combinations for a
disk=[]. Removing "direct-is-save" will use different code paths and the
error is not seen.
Olaf
signature.asc
On 11/10/2016 11:26 AM, Olaf Hering wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 10, Boris Ostrovsky wrote:
Perfect timing. This is from Nov. 10 2015.
>
>> Doing so will cause the grant to be unmapped and then, during
>> fault handling, the fault to be mistakenly treated as NUMA hint
>> fault.
>>
>> In addition, even
On 11/10/2016 11:26 AM, Olaf Hering wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 10, Boris Ostrovsky wrote:
Perfect timing. This is from Nov. 10 2015.
>
>> Doing so will cause the grant to be unmapped and then, during
>> fault handling, the fault to be mistakenly treated as NUMA hint
>> fault.
>>
>> In addition, even
On Tue, Nov 10, Boris Ostrovsky wrote:
> Doing so will cause the grant to be unmapped and then, during
> fault handling, the fault to be mistakenly treated as NUMA hint
> fault.
>
> In addition, even if those maps could partcipate in NUMA
> balancing, it wouldn't provide any benefit since we are
On Tue, Nov 10, Boris Ostrovsky wrote:
> Doing so will cause the grant to be unmapped and then, during
> fault handling, the fault to be mistakenly treated as NUMA hint
> fault.
>
> In addition, even if those maps could partcipate in NUMA
> balancing, it wouldn't provide any benefit since we are
On 10/11/15 20:10, Boris Ostrovsky wrote:
> Doing so will cause the grant to be unmapped and then, during
> fault handling, the fault to be mistakenly treated as NUMA hint
> fault.
>
> In addition, even if those maps could partcipate in NUMA
> balancing, it wouldn't provide any benefit since we
On 10/11/15 20:10, Boris Ostrovsky wrote:
> Doing so will cause the grant to be unmapped and then, during
> fault handling, the fault to be mistakenly treated as NUMA hint
> fault.
>
> In addition, even if those maps could partcipate in NUMA
> balancing, it wouldn't provide any benefit since we
16 matches
Mail list logo
