[libvirt] qemu qxl video memory parameter - windows bsod with spice

On Wed, May 04, 2011 at 05:10:31PM +0400, Emre Erenoglu wrote: > On Wed, May 4, 2011 at 2:12 PM, Alon Levy <alevy(a)redhat.com&gt; wrote: > > > On Wed, May 04, 2011 at 01:45:39PM +0400, Emre Erenoglu wrote: > > > On Wed, Apr 27, 2011 at 1:16 AM, Emre Erenoglu <erenoglu(a)gmail.com&gt; > > wrote: > > > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > > > I started to see frequent crashes with my guests running windows xp and > > > > windows server 2003 x86. The bsod appears on qxldd.dll. I can give > > further > > > > info if needed. > > > > > > > > The host is Linux x86_64, qemu 0.14, spice 0.8.1. Guest has qxl 0.6.1 > > > > drivers loaded. I may revert back to 0.8.0 since it was not crashing. > > > > Nothing changed in the guests when I upgraded spice from 0.8.0 to > > 0.8.1. > > > > > > > > > > > Some updates on the original issue. I checked a lot and I found out that > > the > > > issue continued with any version of spice and guest qxl drivers. > > > > > > I finally digged down to the point that, the qemu comment line which > > states > > > " -global qxl-vga.vram_size=9xxxxxx " parameter is the problem. When > > the > > > guest is started with 9 MB of video memory given as comment line > > parameter > > > to qemu, the guest qxldd driver crashes with BSOD. > > > > Why was it started with 9MB? anyway, good catch, we should add a check for > > this > > in the driver (and probably just refuse to load). Could you open a bug on > > this > > in bugzilla.freedesktop.org? > > > > This is added by libvirt (virt-manager) when launching qemu. Do we need to > file it against libvirt or against spice? I will post this to the libvirt > list also. > > Btw, rather than refusing to load, I think we should just limit the possible > resolutions. I'm not sure if the resolutions are the issue though. The crash > was not happening immediately and it was working OK with that 9 MB memory. > When I launched outlook, or IE8, or just in the middle of an application, it > could crash and bsod. But that number doesn't make any sense - the spice default is 64MB, we never tested with less then that. It is probably fixable like you say, but until that's fixed why not stick to the spice default?