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

Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] move domain to cpupool0 before destroying it

On Mon, May 19, 2014 at 4:34 PM, Jan Beulich <JBeulich@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>> On 19.05.14 at 16:57, <dunlapg@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> On Thu, May 15, 2014 at 5:59 AM, Juergen Gross
>> <juergen.gross@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> Currently when a domain is destroyed it is removed from the domain_list
>>> before all of it's resources, including the cpupool membership, are freed.
>>> This can lead to a situation where the domain is still member of a cpupool
>>> without for_each_domain_in_cpupool() (or even for_each_domain()) being
>>> able to find it any more. This in turn can result in rejection of removing
>>> the last cpu from a cpupool, because there seems to be still a domain in
>>> the cpupool, even if it can't be found by scanning through all domains.
>>> This situation can be avoided by moving the domain to be destroyed to
>>> cpupool0 first and then remove it from this cpupool BEFORE deleting it from
>>> the domain_list. As cpupool0 is always active and a domain without any
>> cpupool
>>> membership is implicitly regarded as belonging to cpupool0, this poses no
>>> problem.
>> I'm a bit unclear why we're doing *both* a sched_move_domain(), *and*
>> moving the "cpupool_rm_domain()".
>> The sched_move_domain() only happens in domain_kill(), which is only
>> initiated (AFAICT) by hypercall: does that mean if a VM dies for some
>> other reason (i.e., crashes), that you may still have the same race?
>> If not, then just this change alone should be sufficent.  If it does,
>> then this change is redundant.
> No, a crashed domain is merely being reported as crashed to the
> tool stack. It's the tool stack to then actually invoke the killing of
> it (or else e.g. "on_crash=preserve" would be rather hard to handle).

Right, I see.

>> Moving the cpupool_rm_domain() will change things so that there is now
>> a period of time where the VM is not being listed as being in
>> cpupool0's pool, but may still be in that pool's scheduler's list of
>> domains.  Is that OK?  If it is OK, it seems like that change alone
>> should be sufficient.
> Moving this earlier was a requirement to avoid the race that the
> earlier (much different) patch tried to address. Also I think the
> patch's description already addresses that question (see the last
> sentence of the quoted original mail contents above).

But we're avoiding that race by instead moving the dying domain to
cpupool0, which is never going to disappear.

Or, moving the domain to cpupool0 *won't* sufficiently solve the race,
and this will -- in which case, why are we bothering to move it to
cpupool0 at all?  Why not just remove it from the cpupool when
removing it from the domain list?  Wouldn't that also solve the
original problem?

Regarding the last bit, "...a domain without any cpupool membership is
implicitly regarded as belonging to cpupool0...":

1. At a quick glance through the code, I couldn't find any evidence
that this was the case; I couldn't find an instance where d->cpupool
== NULL => assumed cpupool0.

2. If in reality d->cpupool is never (or almost never) actually NULL,
then the "implicitly belongs to cpupool0" assumption will bitrot.
Having that kind of assumption without some way of making sure it's
maintained is a bug waiting to happen.

>> I've been trying to trace through the twisty little passages of domain
>> destruction, and I'm still not quite sure: would it be OK if we just
>> called sched_move_domain() in domain_destroy() instead of calling
>> cpupool_rm_domain()?
> No, it would not, because then again we wouldn't be able to deal
> with potential failure, needing re-invocation of the function.



Xen-devel mailing list



Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our
servers 24x7x365 and backed by RackSpace's Fanatical Support®.