Re: [Xen-devel] domain_crash_sync vs "plain crash"

2018-05-16 Thread Wei Liu
On Fri, May 11, 2018 at 07:43:58PM -0300, Charles Gonçalves wrote: > "That is, without (physical > or virtual, depending on component) serial console you're often unlikely to > actually observe any messages connected to the crash." > > I do not have any experience with serial console interaction

Re: [Xen-devel] domain_crash_sync vs "plain crash"

2018-05-11 Thread Charles Gonçalves
@Andrew, Despite SCHED_OP, that I've blacklisted, which one came to mind? On Mon, May 7, 2018 at 5:13 AM Andrew Cooper wrote: > On 07/05/2018 08:09, Jan Beulich wrote: > On 07.05.18 at 03:06, wrote: > >> When I'm performing some

Re: [Xen-devel] domain_crash_sync vs "plain crash"

2018-05-11 Thread Charles Gonçalves
"That is, without (physical or virtual, depending on component) serial console you're often unlikely to actually observe any messages connected to the crash." I do not have any experience with serial console interaction on linux. Can you list some examples for both cases (virtual| physical), I'll

Re: [Xen-devel] domain_crash_sync vs "plain crash"

2018-05-07 Thread Andrew Cooper
On 07/05/2018 08:09, Jan Beulich wrote: On 07.05.18 at 03:06, wrote: >> When I'm performing some hypercalls with some "unexpected" parameters >> (robustness test) sometimes the guest is explicitly "killed" by xen >> calling the domain_crash(), but sometimes the guest

Re: [Xen-devel] domain_crash_sync vs "plain crash"

2018-05-07 Thread Jan Beulich
>>> On 07.05.18 at 03:06, wrote: > When I'm performing some hypercalls with some "unexpected" parameters > (robustness test) sometimes the guest is explicitly "killed" by xen > calling the domain_crash(), but sometimes the guest just crash without any > explicit message on