Re: Xen, Squeeze, and Beyond
----- "Josip Rodin" <email@example.com> wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 27, 2010 at 01:23:07AM +0300, William Pitcock wrote:
> > I am looking into packaging xenner already as a backup plan if I
> > manage to fix some major reentrancy problems in the Xen dom0 code
> > (Xensource 2.6.18 patches, the pvops stuff has it's own share of
> > and needs more evaluation).
> The .18 dom0 patches are well on their way out from the perspective
> both Debian and Xen upstream, so you might want to shift focus to the
> branch instead.
I am well aware of that. However, the pvops branch has several critical
- On a 8-way system, it reports 259GHz CPUs for all cores when booted under
- The paravirtualized clock is 4 times slower then it should be in dom0
- The same reentrancy issues exist, as the pvops work is mostly Jeremy
forward porting the 2.6.18 code; a workaround is to dedicate one CPU core
to dom0 operations and pin it.
There are also no pvops dom0 kernel packages shipped by Debian yet, at
least through official channels.
While you are correct that pvops is the future, right now it's no better
reliability-wise then the 2.6.18 xensource patches... unfortunately tracking
these reentrancy bugs (mostly deadlocks) down is a massive pain in the ass.