From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Laszlo Ersek Subject: Re: [xen-unstable bisection] complete test-amd64-i386-rhel6hvm-intel Date: Thu, 01 Sep 2011 19:22:39 +0200 Message-ID: <4E5FBF5F.7030600@redhat.com> References: <20063.45607.355820.209628@mariner.uk.xensource.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20063.45607.355820.209628@mariner.uk.xensource.com> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com To: Ian Jackson Cc: Drew Jones , xen-devel@lists.xensource.com, keir@xen.org, stefano.stabellini@eu.citrix.com, Igor Mammedov , Paolo Bonzini List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org On 09/01/11 18:26, Ian Jackson wrote: >> job test-amd64-i386-rhel6hvm-intel >> changeset: 23802:bb9b81008733 >> user: Laszlo Ersek >> 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 > > 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. In what way was the guest broken? How many physical cores/threads was the hypervisor running on? Thanks, lacos