From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Keir Fraser <Keir.Fraser@cl.cam.ac.uk>
Subject: Re: kernel panic
Date: Mon, 27 Sep 2004 14:25:53 +0100
Sender: xen-devel-admin@lists.sourceforge.net
Message-ID: <E1CBvVp-00029F-00@mta1.cl.cam.ac.uk>
References: <AEC6C66638C05B468B556EA548C1A77D3BE102@trantor>
Return-path: <xen-devel-admin@lists.sourceforge.net>
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Mon, 27 Sep 2004 23:21:28 +1000."
             <AEC6C66638C05B468B556EA548C1A77D3BE102@trantor>
Errors-To: xen-devel-admin@lists.sourceforge.net
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/xen-devel>,
	<mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:xen-devel@lists.sourceforge.net>
List-Help: <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/xen-devel>,
	<mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=subscribe>
List-Archive: <http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?forum=xen-devel>
To: James Harper <JamesH@bendigoit.com.au>
Cc: Keir Fraser <Keir.Fraser@cl.cam.ac.uk>, xen-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org

> > Yes, there seems to be a nasty bug that possibly involves writable
> > page tables (noone has reported the bug with writable page tables
> > disabled in the kernel configuration).
> 
> I'm building now with wpt disabled. I'll let you know how it goes. In
> addition, trying to clean up the crashed domain with 'xm destroy <name>'
> caused dom0 and therefore the whole machine to reboot.

Yes, there is definitely a reference-counting bug in Xen. Once a
guest prints out that particular message, it really is time to reboot
the machine!

> > I've increased the headroom allocated for received packets in teh
> > frontend driver. It should get rid of the messages.
> 
> Is it just an informative message or is it telling me that something is
> wrong?

Informative, as the packet gets copied into a buffer that is big
enough. I just wanted to know how large the buffers should be that I
allocate for received packets -- I want to make it small enough that
buffer accounting in the sockets layer isn't thrown off, but large
enough that packets don't have to be copied to fit. The message tells
me that my chosen size was a bit too small.

 -- Keir


-------------------------------------------------------
This SF.Net email is sponsored by: YOU BE THE JUDGE. Be one of 170
Project Admins to receive an Apple iPod Mini FREE for your judgement on
who ports your project to Linux PPC the best. Sponsored by IBM.
Deadline: Sept. 24. Go here: http://sf.net/ppc_contest.php