9:29 a.m.
Hi,
Fedora's Xen hackers have been working hard towards switching
our kernel-xen package from a forward-ported Xensource kernel tree to a
state-of-the-art upstream, paravirt_ops based, kernel in Fedora 9 as
described here:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/XenPvops
http://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-xen/2007-November/msg00106.html
Some great progress has been made, and tomorrow's rawhide will
have a kernel-xen update with:
+ A very recent 2.6.25-rc4 base
+ Xen paravirt_ops DomU from upstream
+ x86_64 Xen paravirt_ops DomU support
+ Paravirt framebuffer
However, although the Dom0 paravirt_ops work is well advanced at
this point, we still don't have backend drivers or x86_64 Dom0 working.
With the feature freeze looming next week, we have make the
difficult decision to focus the Fedora 9 efforts on DomU and postpone
the inclusion of paravirt_ops Dom0 support.
The alternative course of action was to keep shipping the
2.6.21.7 based kernel-xen in Fedora 9, but we have ruled this out as a
supportable option. This kernel is almost a year old now and we cannot
expect Fedora hackers to keep the distribution working on such an old
kernel. Examples of the kind of issues we see cropping up are:
1) Broken installs due to old squashfs:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/431109
2) Broken SELinux due to old SELinux:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/436173
3) Broken networking due to old netlink:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/431179
We feel that making significant investment across the
distribution to keep this old kernel working for the sake of Dom0
support would be wasting effort on a dead codebase.
Work will continue apace on the Dom0 paravirt_ops effort for
Fedora 10 and we hope to introduce the first build to rawhide soon after
Fedora 9 been branched. This first build should include backend drivers
and x86_64 support. If all goes well with the Dom0 support in Fedora 10
rawhide, we may well pull it into Fedora 9 as a post-GA update.
So, in summary:
1) Try out the F9 rawhide/beta paravirt_ops kernel-xen in your DomUs
2) Keep your Dom0 on Fedora 8 for now
3) If you want to help out with Dom0 paravirt_ops testing, then be
ready to jump onto Fedora 10 rawhide
Thanks,
Mark.
9:49 a.m.
On Thu, 2008-03-06 at 15:29 +0000, Mark McLoughlin wrote:
Some great progress has been made, and tomorrow's rawhide
will
have a kernel-xen update with:
+ A very recent 2.6.25-rc4 base
+ Xen paravirt_ops DomU from upstream
+ x86_64 Xen paravirt_ops DomU support
I forgot to mention a minor detail :-)
kernel-xen-2.6.25-0.0.rc4.fc9.x86_64 doesn't actually boot, but
hopefully Eduardo will have that fixed up in the next short while ...
It boots fine with the config Eduardo was using in testing, but blows up
with the stock Fedora config.
The i686 kernel seems to be in good shape, so please do give that a
hammering.
Cheers,
Mark.
10:51 a.m.
Mark McLoughlin wrote:
So, in summary:
1) Try out the F9 rawhide/beta paravirt_ops kernel-xen in your DomUs
2) Keep your Dom0 on Fedora 8 for now
3) If you want to help out with Dom0 paravirt_ops testing, then be
ready to jump onto Fedora 10 rawhide
Do you expect that the DomUs from the final Fedora 9 release will work
smoothly with the Dom0 from RHEL/CentOS 5.1?
10:53 a.m.
On Thu, Mar 06, 2008 at 11:51:34AM -0500, Aaron Metzger wrote:
Mark McLoughlin wrote:
>
> So, in summary:
>
> 1) Try out the F9 rawhide/beta paravirt_ops kernel-xen in your DomUs
>
> 2) Keep your Dom0 on Fedora 8 for now
>
> 3) If you want to help out with Dom0 paravirt_ops testing, then be
> ready to jump onto Fedora 10 rawhide
>
Do you expect that the DomUs from the final Fedora 9 release will work
smoothly with the Dom0 from RHEL/CentOS 5.1?
Yes, F9 DomU will fully support the Xen 3.x guest ABI, so should be compatible
with any host running Xen 3.x releases including RHEL-5 and Fedora >= 5
Regards,
Dan.
--
|=- Red Hat, Engineering, Emerging Technologies, Boston. +1 978 392 2496 -=|
|=- Perl modules: http://search.cpan.org/~danberr/ -=|
|=- Projects: http://freshmeat.net/~danielpb/ -=|
|=- GnuPG: 7D3B9505 F3C9 553F A1DA 4AC2 5648 23C1 B3DF F742 7D3B 9505 -=|
1:28 p.m.
On Thu, Mar 06, 2008 at 03:29:17PM +0000, Mark McLoughlin wrote:
Hi,
Fedora's Xen hackers have been working hard towards switching
our kernel-xen package from a forward-ported Xensource kernel tree to a
state-of-the-art upstream, paravirt_ops based, kernel in Fedora 9 as
described here:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/XenPvops
http://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-xen/2007-November/msg00106.html
Some great progress has been made, and tomorrow's rawhide will
have a kernel-xen update with:
+ A very recent 2.6.25-rc4 base
+ Xen paravirt_ops DomU from upstream
+ x86_64 Xen paravirt_ops DomU support
+ Paravirt framebuffer
However, although the Dom0 paravirt_ops work is well advanced at
this point, we still don't have backend drivers or x86_64 Dom0 working.
With the feature freeze looming next week, we have make the
difficult decision to focus the Fedora 9 efforts on DomU and postpone
the inclusion of paravirt_ops Dom0 support.
First I'd like to thank you guys for doing this work. I think it's very
important to get good Xen support working and integrated into upstream kernel.
Was there some specific problem/bug about dom0 support (backend drivers and
x86-64), or just not enough time?
Thanks!
-- Pasi
1:33 p.m.
On Thu, Mar 06, 2008 at 09:28:05PM +0200, Pasi K?rkk?inen wrote:
On Thu, Mar 06, 2008 at 03:29:17PM +0000, Mark McLoughlin wrote:
> Hi,
> Fedora's Xen hackers have been working hard towards switching
> our kernel-xen package from a forward-ported Xensource kernel tree to a
> state-of-the-art upstream, paravirt_ops based, kernel in Fedora 9 as
> described here:
>
> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/XenPvops
> http://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-xen/2007-November/msg00106.html
>
> Some great progress has been made, and tomorrow's rawhide will
> have a kernel-xen update with:
>
> + A very recent 2.6.25-rc4 base
>
> + Xen paravirt_ops DomU from upstream
>
> + x86_64 Xen paravirt_ops DomU support
>
> + Paravirt framebuffer
>
> However, although the Dom0 paravirt_ops work is well advanced at
> this point, we still don't have backend drivers or x86_64 Dom0 working.
>
> With the feature freeze looming next week, we have make the
> difficult decision to focus the Fedora 9 efforts on DomU and postpone
> the inclusion of paravirt_ops Dom0 support.
>
First I'd like to thank you guys for doing this work. I think it's very
important to get good Xen support working and integrated into upstream kernel.
Was there some specific problem/bug about dom0 support (backend drivers and
x86-64), or just not enough time?
Simply lack of time - stability of DomU is of most importance because we
can't change the $INSTALL_TREE/images/xen/{vmlinux,initrd.img} once F9
is released. So we need to prioritize DomU support. Pushing out a new
kernel to add Dom0 is trivial post-GA since it doesn't impact installer
images.
Dan.
--
|=- Red Hat, Engineering, Emerging Technologies, Boston. +1 978 392 2496 -=|
|=- Perl modules: http://search.cpan.org/~danberr/ -=|
|=- Projects: http://freshmeat.net/~danielpb/ -=|
|=- GnuPG: 7D3B9505 F3C9 553F A1DA 4AC2 5648 23C1 B3DF F742 7D3B 9505 -=|
3:37 p.m.
Then what would be the Dom0 kernel in Fedora 9?
Emre
On Thu, Mar 6, 2008 at 8:33 PM, Daniel P. Berrange <berrange(a)redhat.com>
wrote:
On Thu, Mar 06, 2008 at 09:28:05PM +0200, Pasi K?rkk?inen wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 06, 2008 at 03:29:17PM +0000, Mark McLoughlin wrote:
> > Hi,
> > Fedora's Xen hackers have been working hard towards switching
> > our kernel-xen package from a forward-ported Xensource kernel tree to
a
> > state-of-the-art upstream, paravirt_ops based, kernel in Fedora 9 as
> > described here:
> >
> > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/XenPvops
> >
http://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-xen/2007-November/msg00106.html
> >
> > Some great progress has been made, and tomorrow's rawhide will
> > have a kernel-xen update with:
> >
> > + A very recent 2.6.25-rc4 base
> >
> > + Xen paravirt_ops DomU from upstream
> >
> > + x86_64 Xen paravirt_ops DomU support
> >
> > + Paravirt framebuffer
> >
> > However, although the Dom0 paravirt_ops work is well advanced
at
> > this point, we still don't have backend drivers or x86_64 Dom0
working.
> >
> > With the feature freeze looming next week, we have make the
> > difficult decision to focus the Fedora 9 efforts on DomU and postpone
> > the inclusion of paravirt_ops Dom0 support.
> >
>
> First I'd like to thank you guys for doing this work. I think it's very
> important to get good Xen support working and integrated into upstream
kernel.
>
> Was there some specific problem/bug about dom0 support (backend drivers
and
> x86-64), or just not enough time?
Simply lack of time - stability of DomU is of most importance because we
can't change the $INSTALL_TREE/images/xen/{vmlinux,initrd.img} once F9
is released. So we need to prioritize DomU support. Pushing out a new
kernel to add Dom0 is trivial post-GA since it doesn't impact installer
images.
Dan.
--
|=- Red Hat, Engineering, Emerging Technologies, Boston. +1 978 392 2496
-=|
|=- Perl modules:
http://search.cpan.org/~danberr/<http://search.cpan.org/%7Edanberr/>
-=|
|=- Projects:
http://freshmeat.net/~danielpb/<http://freshmeat.net/%7Edanielpb/> -=|
|=- GnuPG: 7D3B9505 F3C9 553F A1DA 4AC2 5648 23C1 B3DF F742 7D3B 9505
-=|
--
Fedora-xen mailing list
Fedora-xen(a)redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-xen
--
Emre Erenoglu
erenoglu(a)gmail.com
3:54 p.m.
On Thu, Mar 06, 2008 at 10:37:33PM +0100, Emre ERENOGLU wrote:
Then what would be the Dom0 kernel in Fedora 9?
Nothing.
There will *not* be any Dom0 kernel in Fedora 9 GA release. People who
need Dom0 should stay on Fedora 8. We will work on Dom0 for Fedora 10,
and if it is stable enough release it as an Fedora 9 update after GA.
Dan.
--
|=- Red Hat, Engineering, Emerging Technologies, Boston. +1 978 392 2496 -=|
|=- Perl modules: http://search.cpan.org/~danberr/ -=|
|=- Projects: http://freshmeat.net/~danielpb/ -=|
|=- GnuPG: 7D3B9505 F3C9 553F A1DA 4AC2 5648 23C1 B3DF F742 7D3B 9505 -=|
5:13 a.m.
Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
On Thu, Mar 06, 2008 at 10:37:33PM +0100, Emre ERENOGLU wrote:
> Then what would be the Dom0 kernel in Fedora 9?
>
Nothing.
You can use xenner to run your Xen DomU, if your machine has hardware
virtualization extensions, without a Dom0.
--
Any sufficiently difficult bug is indistinguishable from a feature.
9:22 a.m.
On Fri, Mar 07, 2008 at 01:13:52PM +0200, Avi Kivity wrote:
Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
>On Thu, Mar 06, 2008 at 10:37:33PM +0100, Emre ERENOGLU wrote:
>
>>Then what would be the Dom0 kernel in Fedora 9?
>>
>
>Nothing.
You can use xenner to run your Xen DomU, if your machine has hardware
virtualization extensions, without a Dom0.
In theory yes, but we're still working on getting Xenner integrated with
the management tools & aren't confident of getting that completed for
F9 GA either, so I wasn't going to mention Xenner yet. It also has a bug
currently preventing it from receiving network traffic
Dan.
--
|=- Red Hat, Engineering, Emerging Technologies, Boston. +1 978 392 2496 -=|
|=- Perl modules: http://search.cpan.org/~danberr/ -=|
|=- Projects: http://freshmeat.net/~danielpb/ -=|
|=- GnuPG: 7D3B9505 F3C9 553F A1DA 4AC2 5648 23C1 B3DF F742 7D3B 9505 -=|
6:12 a.m.
On Thu, Mar 06, 2008 at 07:33:03PM +0000, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
On Thu, Mar 06, 2008 at 09:28:05PM +0200, Pasi K?rkk?inen wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 06, 2008 at 03:29:17PM +0000, Mark McLoughlin wrote:
> > Hi,
> > Fedora's Xen hackers have been working hard towards switching
> > our kernel-xen package from a forward-ported Xensource kernel tree to a
> > state-of-the-art upstream, paravirt_ops based, kernel in Fedora 9 as
> > described here:
> >
> > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/XenPvops
> > http://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-xen/2007-November/msg00106.html
> >
> > Some great progress has been made, and tomorrow's rawhide will
> > have a kernel-xen update with:
> >
> > + A very recent 2.6.25-rc4 base
> >
> > + Xen paravirt_ops DomU from upstream
> >
> > + x86_64 Xen paravirt_ops DomU support
> >
> > + Paravirt framebuffer
> >
> > However, although the Dom0 paravirt_ops work is well advanced at
> > this point, we still don't have backend drivers or x86_64 Dom0 working.
> >
> > With the feature freeze looming next week, we have make the
> > difficult decision to focus the Fedora 9 efforts on DomU and postpone
> > the inclusion of paravirt_ops Dom0 support.
> >
>
> First I'd like to thank you guys for doing this work. I think it's very
> important to get good Xen support working and integrated into upstream kernel.
>
> Was there some specific problem/bug about dom0 support (backend drivers and
> x86-64), or just not enough time?
Simply lack of time - stability of DomU is of most importance because we
can't change the $INSTALL_TREE/images/xen/{vmlinux,initrd.img} once F9
is released. So we need to prioritize DomU support. Pushing out a new
kernel to add Dom0 is trivial post-GA since it doesn't impact installer
images.
Yep. Thanks for the update!
When is fedora 10 rawhide expected to open? Meaning when we can start
testing kernel-xen with dom0 support :)
-- Pasi
7:09 a.m.
On Sun, Mar 09, 2008 at 08:36:39AM -0300, Itamar - IspBrasil wrote:
I belive at the end of this year.
Hmm.. I think it's sooner..
Mark wrote like this:
"Work will continue on the Dom0 paravirt_ops effort for Fedora 10 and we
hope to introduce the first build to rawhide soon after Fedora 9 been branched."
I was just wondering when that actually is.. is it when F9 is released (29
April 2008) or sooner, perhaps after F9 beta freeze?
-- Pasi
>
>Yep. Thanks for the update!
>
>When is fedora 10 rawhide expected to open? Meaning when we can start
>testing kernel-xen with dom0 support :)
>
>-- Pasi
>
>
7:12 a.m.
On Sun, Mar 09, 2008 at 02:09:26PM +0200, Pasi Kärkkäinen wrote:
On Sun, Mar 09, 2008 at 08:36:39AM -0300, Itamar - IspBrasil wrote:
> I belive at the end of this year.
>
Hmm.. I think it's sooner..
Mark wrote like this:
"Work will continue on the Dom0 paravirt_ops effort for Fedora 10 and we
hope to introduce the first build to rawhide soon after Fedora 9 been branched."
I was just wondering when that actually is.. is it when F9 is released (29
April 2008) or sooner, perhaps after F9 beta freeze?
Actually looking at this: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Releases/9/Schedule
8 April 2008 "Branch all packages for Fedora 9"
So I guess that's the answer.. :)
-- Pasi
>
> >
> >Yep. Thanks for the update!
> >
> >When is fedora 10 rawhide expected to open? Meaning when we can start
> >testing kernel-xen with dom0 support :)
> >
> >-- Pasi
> >
> >
>
>
10:40 a.m.
Hey,
So, just a status update on beta critical bugs with this kernel-xen:
1) x86_64 kernel won't boot
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/436485
Eduardo is investigating
2) Anaconda will only do a text mode install at the moment
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/434763
Jeremy seems to be on top of this
3) Intermittent boot failure due to disk probing race condition:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/436493
We've a good idea what the fix is, someone just need to backport it
and pull it in.
3) Oops during yum update
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/436453
We have a tracker bug here:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/showdependencytree.cgi?id=PvOpsTracker
Please log any further bugs and add them to the tracker.
Cheers,
Mark.
11:09 a.m.
On Fri, 2008-03-07 at 16:58 +0000, Ian Jackson wrote:
Mark McLoughlin writes ("[Fedora-xen] Plans for paravirt_ops
kernel-xen"):
> + A very recent 2.6.25-rc4 base
Is a public git tree of this kernel available somewhere ?
Unfortunately not. I must move my tree moved to a public server.
However, the biggest chunk is definitely Eduardo's x86_64 work which is
here:
http://git.et.redhat.com/?p=xen-pvops-64.git
You can also see the patches that we're including here:
http://cvs.fedora.redhat.com/viewcvs/rpms/kernel-xen-2.6/devel/
(All the linux-2.6-xen-00....patch patches)
The quick summary is:
- Eduardo's x86_64 patches (only applied on x86_64)
- Marcus's latest pvfb patches
- Frontend module auto-loading and compat aliases
- Mark hvc0 as a preferred console
- xenctrl module
- vmlinuz target
- Execshield revert
Cheers,
Mark.
11:40 a.m.
On Fri, 2008-03-07 at 17:09 +0000, Mark McLoughlin wrote:
On Fri, 2008-03-07 at 16:58 +0000, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Mark McLoughlin writes ("[Fedora-xen] Plans for paravirt_ops
kernel-xen"):
> > + A very recent 2.6.25-rc4 base
>
> Is a public git tree of this kernel available somewhere ?
Unfortunately not. I must move my tree moved to a public server.
Okay, Dan sorted me out:
http://git.et.redhat.com/?p=linux-2.6-fedora-pvops.git;a=summary
Best thing to do is look at the tags where I rebase the patchset, merge
commits etc.:
http://git.et.redhat.com/?p=linux-2.6-fedora-pvops.git;a=shortlog;h=3a3ae...
There are also "kernel-xen" tags which correspond to the source being
built in the RPMs; that includes all the patches from the bare-metal
kernel RPM.
Cheers,
Mark.
5915
days inactive
5918
days old
17 comments
8 participants
participants (8)
-
Aaron Metzger -
Avi Kivity -
Daniel P. Berrange -
Emre Erenoglu -
Ian Jackson -
itamar -
Mark McLoughlin -
Pasi Kärkkäinen