From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Ian Jackson <Ian.Jackson@eu.citrix.com>
Subject: Re: [xen-unstable bisection] complete
	test-amd64-i386-rhel6hvm-intel
Date: Thu, 1 Sep 2011 17:26:15 +0100
Message-ID: <20063.45607.355820.209628@mariner.uk.xensource.com>
References: <E1Qz9bA-0008S0-Hh@woking.xci-test.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Return-path: <xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com>
In-Reply-To: <E1Qz9bA-0008S0-Hh@woking.xci-test.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.xensource.com/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>,
	<mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:xen-devel@lists.xensource.com>
List-Help: <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.xensource.com/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>,
	<mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=subscribe>
Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com
Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com
To: xen-devel@lists.xensource.com, Laszlo Ersek <lersek@redhat.com>
Cc: keir@xen.org, stefano.stabellini@eu.citrix.com
List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org

xen.org writes ("[Xen-devel] [xen-unstable bisection] complete test-amd64-i386-rhel6hvm-intel"):
> branch xen-unstable
> xen branch xen-unstable
> job test-amd64-i386-rhel6hvm-intel
> test xen-install
> 
> Tree: linux git://git.eu.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/jeremy/xen.git
> Tree: qemu git://hg.uk.xensource.com/HG/qemu-xen-unstable.git
> Tree: xen http://hg.uk.xensource.com/xen-unstable.hg
> 
> *** Found and reproduced problem changeset ***
> 
>   Bug is in tree:  xen http://hg.uk.xensource.com/xen-unstable.hg
>   Bug introduced:  bb9b81008733
>   Bug not present: d54cfae72cd1
> 
> 
>   changeset:   23802:bb9b81008733
>   user:        Laszlo Ersek <lersek@redhat.com>
>   date:        Wed Aug 31 15:16:14 2011 +0100
>       
>       x86: Increase the default NR_CPUS to 256
>       
>       Changeset 21012:ef845a385014 bumped the default to 128 about one and a
>       half years ago. Increase it now to 256, as systems with eg. 160
>       logical CPUs are becoming (have become) common.
>       
>       Signed-off-by: Laszlo Ersek <lersek@redhat.com>

My bisector is pretty reliable nowadays.  Looking at the revision
graph it tested before/after/before/after/before/after, ie three times
each on the same host.

This change looks innocuous enough TBH.  Is there any way this change
could have broken a PV-on-HVM guest ?  Note that RHEL6, which is what
this is testing, seems to generally be full of bugs.

If the problem is indeed a bug in the current RHEL6 then I will add
this test to the "do not care" list.

Ian.