This message generated a parse failure. Raw output follows here. Please use 'back' to navigate. From devnull@lkml.org Thu Apr 25 11:40:44 2024 >From spaans Tue Feb 2 11:27:44 2016 Envelope-to: lkml@grols.ch Delivery-date: Tue, 02 Feb 2016 11:23:09 +0100 Received: from srv.grols.ch [2a00:d10:4002:1::101] by squeeze.vs19.net with IMAP (fetchmail-6.3.21) for (single-drop); Tue, 02 Feb 2016 11:27:44 +0100 (CET) Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.180.67]) by home.grols.ch with esmtp (Exim 4.84) (envelope-from ) id 1aQY72-0006m6-Jd for lkml@grols.ch; Tue, 02 Feb 2016 11:23:09 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754516AbcBBKXF (ORCPT ); Tue, 2 Feb 2016 05:23:05 -0500 Received: from smtp.citrix.com ([66.165.176.89]:44432 "EHLO SMTP.CITRIX.COM" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754476AbcBBKXF (ORCPT ); Tue, 2 Feb 2016 05:23:05 -0500 X-Ironport-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.22,384,1449532800"; d="scan'208";a="329105599" Subject: Re: dom0 show call trace and failed to boot on HSW-EX platform To: Andrew Cooper , "Li, Liang Z" , "xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" References: <56B080C7.9070704@citrix.com> Cc: Daniel Kiper , Jan Beulich , Tim Deegan From: David Vrabel Message-Id: <56B08385.2060009@citrix.com> Date: Tue, 2 Feb 2016 10:23:01 +0000 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Icedove/38.5.0 Mime-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <56B080C7.9070704@citrix.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-DLP: MIA1 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-Id: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Received-SPF: none client-ip=209.132.180.67; envelope-from=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org; helo=vger.kernel.org X-Spam-Score: -6.1 X-Spam-Score-Bar: ------ X-Spam-Report: Content analysis details: (-6.1 points, 5.0 required) pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- -------------------------------------------------- -5.0 RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI RBL: Sender listed at http://www.dnswl.org/, high On 02/02/16 10:11, Andrew Cooper wrote: > On 02/02/16 07:40, Li, Liang Z wrote: >> Hi David, >> >> We found dom0 will crash when booing on HSW-EX server, the dom0 kernel version is v4.4. By debugging I found the your patch >> ' x86/xen: discard RAM regions above the maximum reservation' , which the commit ID is : f5775e0b6116b7e2425ccf535243b21 >> caused the regression. The debug message is listed below: >> =============================================================== >> (XEN) mm.c:884:d0v14 pg_owner 0 l1e_owner 0, but real_pg_owner -1 >> (XEN) mm.c:955:d0v14 Error getting mfn 1080000 (pfn ffffffffffffffff) from L1 >> (XEN) mm.c:1269:d0v14 Failure in alloc_l1_table: entry 0 >> (XEN) mm.c:2175:d0v14 Error while validating mfn 188d903 (pfn 17a7cc) for type >> (XEN) mm.c:3101:d0v14 Error -16 while pinning mfn 188d903 >> [ 33.768792] ------------[ cut here ]------------ >> WARNING: CPU: 14 PID: 1 at arch/x86/xen/multicalls.c:129 xen_mc_ >> [ 33.783809] Modules linked in: >> [ 33.787304] CPU: 14 PID: 1 Comm: swapper/0 Not tainted 4.4.0 #1 >> [ 33.793991] Hardware name: Intel Corporation BRICKLAND/BRICKLAND, BIOS >> [ 33.805624] 0000000000000081 ffff88017d2537c8 ffffffff812ff954 000000000000 >> [ 33.813961] 0000000000000000 0000000000000081 0000000000000000 ffff88017d25 >> [ 33.822300] ffffffff810ca120 ffffffff81cb7f00 ffff8801879ca280 000000000000 >> [ 33.830639] Call Trace: >> [ 33.833457] [] dump_stack+0x48/0x64 >> [ 33.839277] [] warn_slowpath_common+0x90/0xd0 >> [ 33.846058] [] warn_slowpath_null+0x15/0x20 >> [ 33.852659] [] xen_mc_flush+0x1c3/0x1d0 >> [ 33.858858] [] xen_alloc_pte+0x20f/0x300 >> [ 33.865158] [] ? update_page_count+0x45/0x60 >> [ 33.871855] [] ? phys_pte_init+0x170/0x183 >> [ 33.878345] [] phys_pmd_init+0x2e6/0x389 >> [ 33.884649] [] phys_pud_init+0x2ad/0x3dc >> [ 33.890954] [] kernel_physical_mapping_init+0xec/0x211 >> [ 33.898613] [] init_memory_mapping+0x17d/0x2f0 >> [ 33.905496] [] ? __raw_callee_save___pv_queued_spin_unloc >> [ 33.914516] [] ? acpi_os_signal_semaphore+0x2e/0x32 >> [ 33.921889] [] arch_add_memory+0x48/0xf0 >> [ 33.928186] [] add_memory_resource+0x80/0x110 >> [ 33.934967] [] add_memory+0x7d/0xc0 >> [ 33.940787] [] acpi_memory_device_add+0x14f/0x237 We shouldn't be adding memory based on the ACPI tables. David