Re: [Xen-devel] Xen-unstable 4.8: HVM domain_crash called from emulate.c:144 RIP: c000:[<000000000000336a>]

>>> On 15.06.16 at 18:46, wrote: > On 06/15/2016 11:54 AM, Jan Beulich wrote: >> >> Yes, albeit two then isn't enough either if we want to fully address >> the basic issue here: We'd have to latch as many translations as >> there are possibly pages involved in the

Re: [Xen-devel] Xen-unstable 4.8: HVM domain_crash called from emulate.c:144 RIP: c000:[<000000000000336a>]

On 06/15/2016 11:54 AM, Jan Beulich wrote: > > Yes, albeit two then isn't enough either if we want to fully address > the basic issue here: We'd have to latch as many translations as > there are possibly pages involved in the execution of a single > instruction. Re: translations changing under us

Re: [Xen-devel] Xen-unstable 4.8: HVM domain_crash called from emulate.c:144 RIP: c000:[<000000000000336a>]

rom: Jan Beulich [mailto:jbeul...@suse.com] >> >> Sent: 15 June 2016 16:22 >> >> To: Paul Durrant; Boris Ostrovsky >> >> Cc: Sander Eikelenboom; xen-devel@lists.xen.org >> >> Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] Xen-unstable 4.8: HVM domain_crash called >&g

Re: [Xen-devel] Xen-unstable 4.8: HVM domain_crash called from emulate.c:144 RIP: c000:[<000000000000336a>]

oris Ostrovsky > >> Cc: Sander Eikelenboom; xen-devel@lists.xen.org > >> Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] Xen-unstable 4.8: HVM domain_crash called > from > >> emulate.c:144 RIP: c000:[<336a>] > >> > >> >>> On 15.06.16 at 16:56, <bo

Re: [Xen-devel] Xen-unstable 4.8: HVM domain_crash called from emulate.c:144 RIP: c000:[<000000000000336a>]

org >> Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] Xen-unstable 4.8: HVM domain_crash called from >> emulate.c:144 RIP: c000:[<336a>] >> >> >>> On 15.06.16 at 16:56, <boris.ostrov...@oracle.com> wrote: >> > On 06/15/2016 10:39 AM, Jan Beulich wrote: >

Re: [Xen-devel] Xen-unstable 4.8: HVM domain_crash called from emulate.c:144 RIP: c000:[<000000000000336a>]

> -Original Message- > From: Jan Beulich [mailto:jbeul...@suse.com] > Sent: 15 June 2016 16:22 > To: Paul Durrant; Boris Ostrovsky > Cc: Sander Eikelenboom; xen-devel@lists.xen.org > Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] Xen-unstable 4.8: HVM domain_crash called from > em

Re: [Xen-devel] Xen-unstable 4.8: HVM domain_crash called from emulate.c:144 RIP: c000:[<000000000000336a>]

>>> On 15.06.16 at 16:56, wrote: > On 06/15/2016 10:39 AM, Jan Beulich wrote: > On 15.06.16 at 16:32, wrote: >>> So perhaps we shouldn't latch data for anything over page size. >> But why? What we latch is the start of the accessed

Re: [Xen-devel] Xen-unstable 4.8: HVM domain_crash called from emulate.c:144 RIP: c000:[<000000000000336a>]

On 06/15/2016 10:39 AM, Jan Beulich wrote: On 15.06.16 at 16:32, wrote: >> So perhaps we shouldn't latch data for anything over page size. > But why? What we latch is the start of the accessed range, so > the repeat count shouldn't matter? Because otherwise we

Re: [Xen-devel] Xen-unstable 4.8: HVM domain_crash called from emulate.c:144 RIP: c000:[<000000000000336a>]

>>> On 15.06.16 at 16:32, wrote: > So perhaps we shouldn't latch data for anything over page size. But why? What we latch is the start of the accessed range, so the repeat count shouldn't matter? > Something like this (it seems to work): I'm rather hesitant to take

Re: [Xen-devel] Xen-unstable 4.8: HVM domain_crash called from emulate.c:144 RIP: c000:[<000000000000336a>]

>>> On 15.06.16 at 16:20, wrote: > On 06/15/2016 10:07 AM, Jan Beulich wrote: > On 15.06.16 at 15:58, wrote: >>> Wednesday, June 15, 2016, 2:48:55 PM, you wrote: Apart from that, and just to see whether there are other differences

Re: [Xen-devel] Xen-unstable 4.8: HVM domain_crash called from emulate.c:144 RIP: c000:[<000000000000336a>]

On 06/15/2016 10:20 AM, Boris Ostrovsky wrote: > On 06/15/2016 10:07 AM, Jan Beulich wrote: > On 15.06.16 at 15:58, wrote: >>> Wednesday, June 15, 2016, 2:48:55 PM, you wrote: Apart from that, and just to see whether there are other differences between your

Re: [Xen-devel] Xen-unstable 4.8: HVM domain_crash called from emulate.c:144 RIP: c000:[<000000000000336a>]

On 06/15/2016 10:07 AM, Jan Beulich wrote: On 15.06.16 at 15:58, wrote: >> Wednesday, June 15, 2016, 2:48:55 PM, you wrote: >>> Apart from that, and just to see whether there are other differences >>> between your guest(s) and mine, could you post a guest config from

Re: [Xen-devel] Xen-unstable 4.8: HVM domain_crash called from emulate.c:144 RIP: c000:[<000000000000336a>]

>>> On 15.06.16 at 15:58, wrote: > Wednesday, June 15, 2016, 2:48:55 PM, you wrote: >> Apart from that, and just to see whether there are other differences >> between your guest(s) and mine, could you post a guest config from >> one that's affected? > > Hope you are not too

Re: [Xen-devel] Xen-unstable 4.8: HVM domain_crash called from emulate.c:144 RIP: c000:[<000000000000336a>]

Wednesday, June 15, 2016, 2:48:55 PM, you wrote: On 15.06.16 at 14:00, wrote: >> Wednesday, June 15, 2016, 12:12:37 PM, you wrote: >> On 15.06.16 at 11:38, wrote: Wednesday, June 15, 2016, 10:57:03 AM, you wrote: > Wednesday, June

Re: [Xen-devel] Xen-unstable 4.8: HVM domain_crash called from emulate.c:144 RIP: c000:[<000000000000336a>]

>>> On 15.06.16 at 14:00, wrote: > Wednesday, June 15, 2016, 12:12:37 PM, you wrote: > On 15.06.16 at 11:38, wrote: >>> Wednesday, June 15, 2016, 10:57:03 AM, you wrote: Wednesday, June 15, 2016, 10:29:37 AM, you wrote: On 15.06.16 at

Re: [Xen-devel] Xen-unstable 4.8: HVM domain_crash called from emulate.c:144 RIP: c000:[<000000000000336a>]

Wednesday, June 15, 2016, 12:12:37 PM, you wrote: On 15.06.16 at 11:38, wrote: >> Wednesday, June 15, 2016, 10:57:03 AM, you wrote: >> >>> Wednesday, June 15, 2016, 10:29:37 AM, you wrote: >> >>> On 15.06.16 at 01:49, wrote: > Just

Re: [Xen-devel] Xen-unstable 4.8: HVM domain_crash called from emulate.c:144 RIP: c000:[<000000000000336a>]

>>> On 15.06.16 at 11:38, wrote: > Wednesday, June 15, 2016, 10:57:03 AM, you wrote: > >> Wednesday, June 15, 2016, 10:29:37 AM, you wrote: > >> On 15.06.16 at 01:49, wrote: Just tested latest xen-unstable 4.8 (xen_changeset git:d337764),

Re: [Xen-devel] Xen-unstable 4.8: HVM domain_crash called from emulate.c:144 RIP: c000:[<000000000000336a>]

Wednesday, June 15, 2016, 10:57:03 AM, you wrote: > Wednesday, June 15, 2016, 10:29:37 AM, you wrote: > On 15.06.16 at 01:49, wrote: >>> Just tested latest xen-unstable 4.8 (xen_changeset git:d337764), >>> but one of the latest commits seems to have broken boot of HVM

Re: [Xen-devel] Xen-unstable 4.8: HVM domain_crash called from emulate.c:144 RIP: c000:[<000000000000336a>]

Wednesday, June 15, 2016, 10:29:37 AM, you wrote: On 15.06.16 at 01:49, wrote: >> Just tested latest xen-unstable 4.8 (xen_changeset git:d337764), >> but one of the latest commits seems to have broken boot of HVM guests >> (using qemu-xen) previous build with

Re: [Xen-devel] Xen-unstable 4.8: HVM domain_crash called from emulate.c:144 RIP: c000:[<000000000000336a>]

>>> On 15.06.16 at 01:49, wrote: > Just tested latest xen-unstable 4.8 (xen_changeset git:d337764), > but one of the latest commits seems to have broken boot of HVM guests > (using qemu-xen) previous build with xen_changeset git:6e908ee worked > fine. Primary suspects

[Xen-devel] Xen-unstable 4.8: HVM domain_crash called from emulate.c:144 RIP: c000:[<000000000000336a>]

Hi, Just tested latest xen-unstable 4.8 (xen_changeset git:d337764), but one of the latest commits seems to have broken boot of HVM guests (using qemu-xen) previous build with xen_changeset git:6e908ee worked fine. -- Sander (XEN) [2016-06-14 22:47:36.827] HVM19 save: CPU (XEN) [2016-06-14