On Thu, 22 Nov 2012 14:26:10 -0800
"H. Peter Anvin" wrote:
> Bullshit. This should be a separate domain.
Thanks for top-posting, hpa...
> Andrew Cooper wrote:
>
> >On 22/11/12 17:47, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> >> The other thing that should be considered here is how utterly
> >> preposterous
On Thu, 22 Nov 2012 14:26:10 -0800
H. Peter Anvin h...@zytor.com wrote:
Bullshit. This should be a separate domain.
Thanks for top-posting, hpa...
Andrew Cooper andrew.coop...@citrix.com wrote:
On 22/11/12 17:47, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
The other thing that should be considered here is
Daniel Kiper writes:
> On Thu, Nov 22, 2012 at 04:15:48AM -0800, ebied...@xmission.com wrote:
>>
>> Is this for when the hypervisor crashes and we want a crash dump of
>> that?
>
> dom0 at boot gets some info about kexec/kdump configuration from Xen
> hypervisor
> (e.g. placement of crash
On Fri, Nov 23, 2012 at 10:51:55AM +, Jan Beulich wrote:
> >>> On 23.11.12 at 11:37, Daniel Kiper wrote:
> > On Fri, Nov 23, 2012 at 09:53:37AM +, Jan Beulich wrote:
> >> >>> On 23.11.12 at 02:56, Andrew Cooper wrote:
> >> > On 23/11/2012 01:38, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> >> >> I still
>>> On 23.11.12 at 11:37, Daniel Kiper wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 23, 2012 at 09:53:37AM +, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> >>> On 23.11.12 at 02:56, Andrew Cooper wrote:
>> > On 23/11/2012 01:38, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
>> >> I still don't really get why it can't be isolated from dom0, which would
>> > make
On Fri, Nov 23, 2012 at 09:53:37AM +, Jan Beulich wrote:
> >>> On 23.11.12 at 02:56, Andrew Cooper wrote:
> > On 23/11/2012 01:38, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> >> I still don't really get why it can't be isolated from dom0, which would
> > make more sense to me, even for a Xen crash.
> >>
> >
> >
>>> On 22.11.12 at 18:37, "H. Peter Anvin" wrote:
> I actually talked to Ian Jackson at LCE, and mentioned among other
> things the bogosity of requiring a PUD page for three-level paging in
> Linux -- a bogosity which has spread from Xen into native. It's a page
> wasted for no good reason,
>>> On 23.11.12 at 02:56, Andrew Cooper wrote:
> On 23/11/2012 01:38, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
>> I still don't really get why it can't be isolated from dom0, which would
> make more sense to me, even for a Xen crash.
>>
>
> The crash region (as specified by crashkernel= on the Xen command line)
>
On Thu, Nov 22, 2012 at 04:15:48AM -0800, ebied...@xmission.com wrote:
> Daniel Kiper writes:
>
> > On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 08:40:39AM -0800, ebied...@xmission.com wrote:
> >> Daniel Kiper writes:
> >>
> >> > Some kexec/kdump implementations (e.g. Xen PVOPS) could not use default
> >> >
On Thu, Nov 22, 2012 at 04:15:48AM -0800, ebied...@xmission.com wrote:
Daniel Kiper daniel.ki...@oracle.com writes:
On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 08:40:39AM -0800, ebied...@xmission.com wrote:
Daniel Kiper daniel.ki...@oracle.com writes:
Some kexec/kdump implementations (e.g. Xen PVOPS) could
On 23.11.12 at 02:56, Andrew Cooper andrew.coop...@citrix.com wrote:
On 23/11/2012 01:38, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
I still don't really get why it can't be isolated from dom0, which would
make more sense to me, even for a Xen crash.
The crash region (as specified by crashkernel= on the Xen
On 22.11.12 at 18:37, H. Peter Anvin h...@zytor.com wrote:
I actually talked to Ian Jackson at LCE, and mentioned among other
things the bogosity of requiring a PUD page for three-level paging in
Linux -- a bogosity which has spread from Xen into native. It's a page
wasted for no good
On Fri, Nov 23, 2012 at 09:53:37AM +, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 23.11.12 at 02:56, Andrew Cooper andrew.coop...@citrix.com wrote:
On 23/11/2012 01:38, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
I still don't really get why it can't be isolated from dom0, which would
make more sense to me, even for a Xen crash.
On 23.11.12 at 11:37, Daniel Kiper daniel.ki...@oracle.com wrote:
On Fri, Nov 23, 2012 at 09:53:37AM +, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 23.11.12 at 02:56, Andrew Cooper andrew.coop...@citrix.com wrote:
On 23/11/2012 01:38, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
I still don't really get why it can't be isolated
On Fri, Nov 23, 2012 at 10:51:55AM +, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 23.11.12 at 11:37, Daniel Kiper daniel.ki...@oracle.com wrote:
On Fri, Nov 23, 2012 at 09:53:37AM +, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 23.11.12 at 02:56, Andrew Cooper andrew.coop...@citrix.com wrote:
On 23/11/2012 01:38, H. Peter
Daniel Kiper daniel.ki...@oracle.com writes:
On Thu, Nov 22, 2012 at 04:15:48AM -0800, ebied...@xmission.com wrote:
Is this for when the hypervisor crashes and we want a crash dump of
that?
dom0 at boot gets some info about kexec/kdump configuration from Xen
hypervisor
(e.g. placement of
On 23/11/2012 01:38, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> I still don't really get why it can't be isolated from dom0, which would make
> more sense to me, even for a Xen crash.
>
The crash region (as specified by crashkernel= on the Xen command line)
is isolated from dom0.
dom0 (using the kexec utility
I still don't really get why it can't be isolated from dom0, which would make
more sense to me, even for a Xen crash.
Andrew Cooper wrote:
>On 22/11/2012 17:47, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
>> The other thing that should be considered here is how utterly
>> preposterous the notion of doing in-guest
Ok... that *sort of* makes sense, but also underscores how utterly different
this is from a normal kexec.
Andrew Cooper wrote:
>On 22/11/2012 17:47, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
>> The other thing that should be considered here is how utterly
>> preposterous the notion of doing in-guest crash
Daniel Kiper writes:
> On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 08:40:39AM -0800, ebied...@xmission.com wrote:
>> Daniel Kiper writes:
>>
>> > Some kexec/kdump implementations (e.g. Xen PVOPS) could not use default
>> > functions or require some changes in behavior of kexec/kdump generic code.
>> > To cope with
On 22/11/2012 17:47, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> The other thing that should be considered here is how utterly
> preposterous the notion of doing in-guest crash dumping is in a system
> that contains a hypervisor. The reason for kdump is that on bare metal
> there are no other options, but in a
Bullshit. This should be a separate domain.
Andrew Cooper wrote:
>On 22/11/12 17:47, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
>> The other thing that should be considered here is how utterly
>> preposterous the notion of doing in-guest crash dumping is in a
>system
>> that contains a hypervisor. The reason
On 11/22/2012 04:15 AM, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
Let me be clear. kexec_ops as you have implemented it is absolutely
unacceptable.
Your kexec_ops is not an abstraction but a hack that enshrines in stone
implementation details.
This is the kind of stuff that is absolutely endemic to the Xen
The other thing that should be considered here is how utterly
preposterous the notion of doing in-guest crash dumping is in a system
that contains a hypervisor. The reason for kdump is that on bare metal
there are no other options, but in a hypervisor system the right thing
should be for the
On 22/11/12 17:47, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> The other thing that should be considered here is how utterly
> preposterous the notion of doing in-guest crash dumping is in a system
> that contains a hypervisor. The reason for kdump is that on bare metal
> there are no other options, but in a
On 22/11/12 17:47, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
The other thing that should be considered here is how utterly
preposterous the notion of doing in-guest crash dumping is in a system
that contains a hypervisor. The reason for kdump is that on bare metal
there are no other options, but in a
The other thing that should be considered here is how utterly
preposterous the notion of doing in-guest crash dumping is in a system
that contains a hypervisor. The reason for kdump is that on bare metal
there are no other options, but in a hypervisor system the right thing
should be for the
On 11/22/2012 04:15 AM, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
Let me be clear. kexec_ops as you have implemented it is absolutely
unacceptable.
Your kexec_ops is not an abstraction but a hack that enshrines in stone
implementation details.
This is the kind of stuff that is absolutely endemic to the Xen
Bullshit. This should be a separate domain.
Andrew Cooper andrew.coop...@citrix.com wrote:
On 22/11/12 17:47, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
The other thing that should be considered here is how utterly
preposterous the notion of doing in-guest crash dumping is in a
system
that contains a
On 22/11/2012 17:47, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
The other thing that should be considered here is how utterly
preposterous the notion of doing in-guest crash dumping is in a system
that contains a hypervisor. The reason for kdump is that on bare metal
there are no other options, but in a
Daniel Kiper daniel.ki...@oracle.com writes:
On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 08:40:39AM -0800, ebied...@xmission.com wrote:
Daniel Kiper daniel.ki...@oracle.com writes:
Some kexec/kdump implementations (e.g. Xen PVOPS) could not use default
functions or require some changes in behavior of
Ok... that *sort of* makes sense, but also underscores how utterly different
this is from a normal kexec.
Andrew Cooper andrew.coop...@citrix.com wrote:
On 22/11/2012 17:47, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
The other thing that should be considered here is how utterly
preposterous the notion of doing
I still don't really get why it can't be isolated from dom0, which would make
more sense to me, even for a Xen crash.
Andrew Cooper andrew.coop...@citrix.com wrote:
On 22/11/2012 17:47, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
The other thing that should be considered here is how utterly
preposterous the
On 23/11/2012 01:38, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
I still don't really get why it can't be isolated from dom0, which would make
more sense to me, even for a Xen crash.
The crash region (as specified by crashkernel= on the Xen command line)
is isolated from dom0.
dom0 (using the kexec utility etc)
On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 08:40:39AM -0800, ebied...@xmission.com wrote:
> Daniel Kiper writes:
>
> > Some kexec/kdump implementations (e.g. Xen PVOPS) could not use default
> > functions or require some changes in behavior of kexec/kdump generic code.
> > To cope with that problem kexec_ops struct
On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 08:40:39AM -0800, ebied...@xmission.com wrote:
Daniel Kiper daniel.ki...@oracle.com writes:
Some kexec/kdump implementations (e.g. Xen PVOPS) could not use default
functions or require some changes in behavior of kexec/kdump generic code.
To cope with that problem
Daniel Kiper writes:
> Some kexec/kdump implementations (e.g. Xen PVOPS) could not use default
> functions or require some changes in behavior of kexec/kdump generic code.
> To cope with that problem kexec_ops struct was introduced. It allows
> a developer to replace all or some functions and
Daniel Kiper daniel.ki...@oracle.com writes:
Some kexec/kdump implementations (e.g. Xen PVOPS) could not use default
functions or require some changes in behavior of kexec/kdump generic code.
To cope with that problem kexec_ops struct was introduced. It allows
a developer to replace all or
38 matches
Mail list logo
