On Monday, December 08, 2008 2:10 PM, "Isaku Yamahata" wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 08, 2008 at 01:52:38PM +0800, Zhang, Jingke wrote:
>> Isaku Yamahata wrote:
>>> On Mon, Dec 08, 2008 at 11:31:15AM +0800, Zhang, Jingke wrote:
>>>> Hi Isaku,
>>>> We re-get the detail information from serial port, please see
>>>> below. Two comments add:
>>> Thank you.
>>>> 1. We can be sure the Cset#18832 works well on the same tiger4
>>>> machine. But we did not do regression test between 18832 and this
>>>> 2. It is strange that on another Tiger4 box, dom0 will NOT
>>>> crash. Do you have any idea from the serial log? Thanks!
>>> I haven't hit this crash. And Kuwamura-san's test seems that
>>> he haven't hit it either. Kuwamura-san, is it correct?
>>> Hmm... it seems to depend on hw configuration?
>>> I'm inclined to suspect masking/unmasking interruption race.
>>> event channel issues? But that's just only my very vague guess.
>>> The difference between 18832 and 18860 means the merging
>>> xen-unstable into xen-ia64-unstable. Looking the log, I suspect
>>> linux-2.6.18-xen instead of xen.
>>> Could you provide the linux c/s which corresponds to 18832 and
>> Hi Isaku,
>> Yes, some of our machines do not crash. I am afraid there may be
>> some potential issue. By testing 18832, we use linux#742. While
>> 18860 uses linux#753. Thanks!
> Thank you. Taking rough look at them those change sets doesn't
> seem culprit.
> I agree with you that this may indicate some potential bugs...
This bug is stably reproduced, if providing "dom0_mem=2048M" in append option.
And if setting dom0_mem to 1024M or 4096M, the crashing doesn't happen.
We tried #18869 Xen + #742 Dom0, system is okay. So the problem might be in
Linux tree between #742~#753
Xen-ia64-devel mailing list