On 30.04.2023 19:16, Elliott Mitchell wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 20, 2023 at 09:28:20AM +0100, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> On 20.03.2023 09:14, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>> On 17.03.2023 18:26, Elliott Mitchell wrote:
On Fri, Mar 17, 2023 at 09:22:09AM +0100, Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 16.03.2023 23:03,
On Mon, Mar 20, 2023 at 09:28:20AM +0100, Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 20.03.2023 09:14, Jan Beulich wrote:
> > On 17.03.2023 18:26, Elliott Mitchell wrote:
> >> On Fri, Mar 17, 2023 at 09:22:09AM +0100, Jan Beulich wrote:
> >>> On 16.03.2023 23:03, Elliott Mitchell wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 13, 2023
On Tue, Mar 21, 2023 at 08:13:15AM +0100, Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 21.03.2023 05:19, Elliott Mitchell wrote:
>
> > The above appears about twice for each core, then I start seeing
> > "(XEN) CPU#: No irq handler for vector ?? (IRQ -2147483648, LAPIC)"
> >
> > The core doesn't vary too much with
> > >> I was taking a look at the BIOS manual for this motherboard and noticed
> > >> a mention of a "Local APIC Mode" setting. Four values are listed
> > >> "Compatibility", "xAPIC", "x2APIC", and "Auto".
>
> This does appear to be an improvement. With this the system boots if
>
On Mon, Mar 20, 2023 at 09:28:20AM +0100, Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 20.03.2023 09:14, Jan Beulich wrote:
> > On 17.03.2023 18:26, Elliott Mitchell wrote:
> >> On Fri, Mar 17, 2023 at 09:22:09AM +0100, Jan Beulich wrote:
> >>> On 16.03.2023 23:03, Elliott Mitchell wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 13, 2023
On 21.03.2023 05:19, Elliott Mitchell wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 20, 2023 at 09:28:20AM +0100, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> AMD/IOMMU: without XT, x2APIC needs to be forced into physical mode
>>
>> An earlier change with the same title (commit 1ba66a870eba) altered only
>> the path where x2apic_phys was
On Mon, Mar 20, 2023 at 09:28:20AM +0100, Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 20.03.2023 09:14, Jan Beulich wrote:
> > On 17.03.2023 18:26, Elliott Mitchell wrote:
> >> On Fri, Mar 17, 2023 at 09:22:09AM +0100, Jan Beulich wrote:
> >>> On 16.03.2023 23:03, Elliott Mitchell wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 13, 2023
On 20/03/2023 8:28 am, Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 20.03.2023 09:14, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> On 17.03.2023 18:26, Elliott Mitchell wrote:
>>> On Fri, Mar 17, 2023 at 09:22:09AM +0100, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 16.03.2023 23:03, Elliott Mitchell wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 13, 2023 at 08:01:02AM +0100, Jan
On 20.03.2023 16:37, Elliott Mitchell wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 20, 2023 at 09:14:17AM +0100, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> On 17.03.2023 18:26, Elliott Mitchell wrote:
>>> I'm tempted to propose allowing _Static_assert() since it is valuable
>>> functionality for preventing issues.
>>
>> How does
On Mon, Mar 20, 2023 at 09:14:17AM +0100, Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 17.03.2023 18:26, Elliott Mitchell wrote:
> > On Fri, Mar 17, 2023 at 09:22:09AM +0100, Jan Beulich wrote:
> >> On 16.03.2023 23:03, Elliott Mitchell wrote:
> >>> On Mon, Mar 13, 2023 at 08:01:02AM +0100, Jan Beulich wrote:
>
On 20.03.2023 09:14, Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 17.03.2023 18:26, Elliott Mitchell wrote:
>> On Fri, Mar 17, 2023 at 09:22:09AM +0100, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>> On 16.03.2023 23:03, Elliott Mitchell wrote:
On Mon, Mar 13, 2023 at 08:01:02AM +0100, Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 11.03.2023 01:09,
On 17.03.2023 18:26, Elliott Mitchell wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 17, 2023 at 09:22:09AM +0100, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> On 16.03.2023 23:03, Elliott Mitchell wrote:
>>> On Mon, Mar 13, 2023 at 08:01:02AM +0100, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 11.03.2023 01:09, Elliott Mitchell wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 09, 2023
On Fri, Mar 17, 2023 at 09:22:09AM +0100, Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 16.03.2023 23:03, Elliott Mitchell wrote:
> > On Mon, Mar 13, 2023 at 08:01:02AM +0100, Jan Beulich wrote:
> >> On 11.03.2023 01:09, Elliott Mitchell wrote:
> >>> On Thu, Mar 09, 2023 at 10:03:23AM +0100, Jan Beulich wrote:
>
>
On 16.03.2023 23:03, Elliott Mitchell wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 13, 2023 at 08:01:02AM +0100, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> On 11.03.2023 01:09, Elliott Mitchell wrote:
>>> On Thu, Mar 09, 2023 at 10:03:23AM +0100, Jan Beulich wrote:
In any event you will want to collect a serial log at maximum
On Mon, Mar 13, 2023 at 08:01:02AM +0100, Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 11.03.2023 01:09, Elliott Mitchell wrote:
> > On Thu, Mar 09, 2023 at 10:03:23AM +0100, Jan Beulich wrote:
> >>
> >> In any event you will want to collect a serial log at maximum verbosity.
> >> It would also be of interest to know
On 11.03.2023 01:09, Elliott Mitchell wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 09, 2023 at 10:03:23AM +0100, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>
>> In any event you will want to collect a serial log at maximum verbosity.
>> It would also be of interest to know whether turning off the IOMMU avoids
>> the issue as well (on the
On Thu, Mar 09, 2023 at 10:03:23AM +0100, Jan Beulich wrote:
>
> In any event you will want to collect a serial log at maximum verbosity.
> It would also be of interest to know whether turning off the IOMMU avoids
> the issue as well (on the assumption that your system has less than 255
> CPUs).
On 10.03.2023 04:25, Elliott Mitchell wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 09, 2023 at 10:03:23AM +0100, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> On 09.03.2023 00:08, Elliott Mitchell wrote:
>>>
>>> As such I'm less than certain the problem is still in HEAD, though
>>> Neowutran and Co working with 4.16 and the commit log being
On Thu, Mar 09, 2023 at 10:03:23AM +0100, Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 09.03.2023 00:08, Elliott Mitchell wrote:
> >
> > As such I'm less than certain the problem is still in HEAD, though
> > Neowutran and Co working with 4.16 and the commit log being quiet
> > suggests there is a good chance.
> >
>
On 09.03.2023 00:08, Elliott Mitchell wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 08, 2023 at 04:50:51PM +0100, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> On 08.03.2023 16:23, Elliott Mitchell wrote:
>>> Mostly SSIA. As originally identified by "Neowutran", appears Xen's
>>> x2apic wrapper implementation fails with current generation AMD
On Wed, Mar 08, 2023 at 04:50:51PM +0100, Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 08.03.2023 16:23, Elliott Mitchell wrote:
> > Mostly SSIA. As originally identified by "Neowutran", appears Xen's
> > x2apic wrapper implementation fails with current generation AMD hardware
> > (Ryzen 7xxx/Zen 4). This can be
On 08.03.2023 16:23, Elliott Mitchell wrote:
> Mostly SSIA. As originally identified by "Neowutran", appears Xen's
> x2apic wrapper implementation fails with current generation AMD hardware
> (Ryzen 7xxx/Zen 4). This can be worked around by passing "x2apic=false"
> on Xen's command-line, though
On 08/03/2023 3:23 pm, Elliott Mitchell wrote:
> Mostly SSIA. As originally identified by "Neowutran", appears Xen's
> x2apic wrapper implementation fails with current generation AMD hardware
> (Ryzen 7xxx/Zen 4). This can be worked around by passing "x2apic=false"
> on Xen's command-line,
Mostly SSIA. As originally identified by "Neowutran", appears Xen's
x2apic wrapper implementation fails with current generation AMD hardware
(Ryzen 7xxx/Zen 4). This can be worked around by passing "x2apic=false"
on Xen's command-line, though I'm wondering about the performance impact.
There
24 matches
Mail list logo