From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Matthias Subject: Re: Please revert / review 077fc1c04d70ef1748ac2daa6622b3320a1a004c Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2014 17:07:44 +0200 Message-ID: References: <5399828D02000078000B63B7@mail.emea.novell.com> <539EC228020000780001A7FC@mail.emea.novell.com> <539F20EB020000780001AB5A@mail.emea.novell.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============5577102071902485132==" Return-path: In-Reply-To: <539F20EB020000780001AB5A@mail.emea.novell.com> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org To: Jan Beulich Cc: Yang Z Zhang , "tim@xen.org" , "xen-devel@lists.xen.org" List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org --===============5577102071902485132== Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7bfd0188e0bb6404fbf564aa --047d7bfd0188e0bb6404fbf564aa Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Yes, I use this domU for gaming and photo editing, so it got 8000MB of Ram (in my second post, I attached the domU config as well (WORK.vmconfig), if you need more info about the domU). 2014-06-16 16:52 GMT+02:00 Jan Beulich : > >>> On 16.06.14 at 15:42, wrote: > > According to Jans suggestion, I did a second build with xen up to the > > changeset he suggested and attached another round of logs. > > Interesting - at least the addresses aren't as bogus anymore: > > (XEN) AMD-Vi: IO_PAGE_FAULT: domain = 1, device id = 0x500, fault address > = 0x1d27d0000, flags = 0 > > Are you indeed assigning around 8Gb (or more) to this guest? > > Jan > > --047d7bfd0188e0bb6404fbf564aa Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Yes, I use this domU for gaming and photo editing, so it g= ot 8000MB of Ram (in my second post, I attached the domU config as well (WO= RK.vmconfig), if you need more info about the domU).


2014-06-16 16:52 GMT+02:00 Jan Beulich <= span dir=3D"ltr"><JBeulich@suse.com>:
>>> On 16.06.14 at 15:42, <matthias.kannenberg@googlemail.com>= ; wrote:
> According to Jans suggestion, I did a second build with xen up to the<= br> > changeset he suggested and attached another round of logs.

Interesting - at least the addresses aren't as bogus anymore:

(XEN) AMD-Vi: IO_PAGE_FAULT: domain =3D 1, device id =3D 0x500, fault addre= ss =3D 0x1d27d0000, flags =3D 0

Are you indeed assigning around 8Gb (or more) to this guest?

Jan


--047d7bfd0188e0bb6404fbf564aa-- --===============5577102071902485132== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xen.org http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel --===============5577102071902485132==--