qemu-devel
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Qemu-devel] kvm control qemu-system-aarch64 state


From: Claudio Fontana
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] kvm control qemu-system-aarch64 state
Date: Tue, 4 Feb 2014 17:37:40 +0100

Hello Peter,

thank you for your answer,

On 4 February 2014 16:39, Peter Maydell <address@hidden> wrote:
>
> On 4 February 2014 15:36, Claudio Fontana <address@hidden> wrote:
> > I just wanted to ask what is the current state of kvm control for
> > qemu-system-aarch64.
> > I tried latest mainline but I think it's not all there yet (it complains
> > about missing cpu when I use -M virt and -cpu host, so I suspect some of VOS
> > patches are still missing).
> >
> > Is your aarch64-kvm still the one branch to look at?
>
> Nope, this should all work in mainline. If it doesn't it's
> worth investigating what exactly is going wrong.
>
> (Sanity check, you did pass -enable-kvm, right? If you don't
> then QEMU will complain about "-cpu host", because that
> only exists if KVM is enabled.)
>
> thanks
> -- PMM

I tried both, without -enable-kvm I get the complaint about "-cpu
host" as you mention,
but with -enable-kvm and the latest kernel I get:


[ 8489.895747] BUG: Bad page state in process qemu-system-aar  pfn:0a5cd
[ 8489.895816] page:fffffdfc002444d8 count:-1 mapcount:0 mapping:
    (null) index:0x0
[ 8489.895870] page flags: 0x0()
[ 8489.895916] page dumped because: nonzero _count
[ 8489.895957] Modules linked in:
[ 8489.896030] CPU: 0 PID: 3031 Comm: qemu-system-aar Tainted: G    B
      3.13.0cla-09218-g0e47c96-dirty #2
[ 8489.896085] Call trace:
[ 8489.896154] [<fffffe0000095744>] dump_backtrace+0x0/0x12c
[ 8489.896231] [<fffffe0000095884>] show_stack+0x14/0x1c
[ 8489.896307] [<fffffe00003db58c>] dump_stack+0x70/0x8c
[ 8489.896378] [<fffffe00001210d8>] bad_page+0xe8/0x134
[ 8489.896453] [<fffffe0000121740>] get_page_from_freelist+0x500/0x608
[ 8489.896532] [<fffffe00001220d0>] __alloc_pages_nodemask+0x110/0x7ec
[ 8489.896619] [<fffffe000013ce50>] handle_mm_fault+0x760/0x980
[ 8489.896704] [<fffffe000009a0cc>] do_page_fault+0x228/0x378
[ 8489.896773] [<fffffe0000090104>] do_mem_abort+0x3c/0x9c
[ 8489.896833] Exception stack(0xfffffe0020247e30 to 0xfffffe0020247f50)
[ 8489.896918] 7e20:                                     00000001
00000000 aa8505b0 000003ff
[ 8489.897030] 7e40: ffffffff ffffffff aa785a84 000003ff 00000000
00000000 0015e5a8 fffffe00
[ 8489.897142] 7e60: 20247e70 fffffe00 000c2e48 fffffe00 20247ea0
fffffe00 00095490 fffffe00
[ 8489.897254] 7e80: 20244000 fffffe00 00000000 00000000 ffffffff
ffffffff aa86f118 000003ff
[ 8489.897366] 7ea0: fea46360 000003ff 0009288c fffffe00 fea46580
000003ff fea463e0 000003ff
[ 8489.897476] 7ec0: fea46360 000003ff 000927ec fffffe00 00f3f710
00000000 00012e61 00000000
[ 8489.897584] 7ee0: 00000000 00000000 00f4d1a0 00000000 0000da91
00000000 00000001 00000000
[ 8489.897694] 7f00: 0000000d 00000000 0000036a 00000000 7f7f7f7f
7f7f7f7f 00680ca8 00000000
[ 8489.897800] 7f20: 0000006d 00000000 00000020 00000000 00000078
00000000 00000080 00000000
[ 8489.897884] 7f40: 006812b0 00000000 aa852598 000003ff


But at least I know that it _should_ work, I'll keep digging.. thanks,

Claudio



reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]