Re: dom0 show call trace and failed to boot on HSW-EX platform
From: David Vrabel
Date: Tue Feb 02 2016 - 05:23:10 EST
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[24;80H[24;80H[24;80H[24;80H
>> [ 33.813961] 0000000000000000 0000000000000081 0000000000000000 ffff88017d25[24;80H[24;80H[24;80H[24;80H
>> [ 33.822300] ffffffff810ca120 ffffffff81cb7f00 ffff8801879ca280 000000000000[24;80H[24;80H[24;80H[24;80H
>> [ 33.830639] Call Trace:
>> [ 33.833457] [<ffffffff812ff954>] dump_stack+0x48/0x64
>> [ 33.839277] [<ffffffff810ca120>] warn_slowpath_common+0x90/0xd0
>> [ 33.846058] [<ffffffff810ca175>] warn_slowpath_null+0x15/0x20
>> [ 33.852659] [<ffffffff81060133>] xen_mc_flush+0x1c3/0x1d0
>> [ 33.858858] [<ffffffff8106449f>] xen_alloc_pte+0x20f/0x300
>> [ 33.865158] [<ffffffff810beef5>] ? update_page_count+0x45/0x60
>> [ 33.871855] [<ffffffff817a1194>] ? phys_pte_init+0x170/0x183
>> [ 33.878345] [<ffffffff817a148d>] phys_pmd_init+0x2e6/0x389
>> [ 33.884649] [<ffffffff817a17dd>] phys_pud_init+0x2ad/0x3dc
>> [ 33.890954] [<ffffffff817a290d>] kernel_physical_mapping_init+0xec/0x211
>> [ 33.898613] [<ffffffff8179df8d>] init_memory_mapping+0x17d/0x2f0
>> [ 33.905496] [<ffffffff81104f11>] ? __raw_callee_save___pv_queued_spin_unloc[24;80H[24;80H[24;80H[24;80H[24;80H[24;80H[24;80H[24;80H[24;80H[24;80H[24;80H
>> [ 33.914516] [<ffffffff813643f7>] ? acpi_os_signal_semaphore+0x2e/0x32
>> [ 33.921889] [<ffffffff810ba7b8>] arch_add_memory+0x48/0xf0
>> [ 33.928186] [<ffffffff8179eb80>] add_memory_resource+0x80/0x110
>> [ 33.934967] [<ffffffff8179ec8d>] add_memory+0x7d/0xc0
>> [ 33.940787] [<ffffffff81399538>] acpi_memory_device_add+0x14f/0x237
We shouldn't be adding memory based on the ACPI tables.
David