[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] Re: [Xen-devel] Xen crashing when killing a domain with no VCPUs allocated
>>> On 21.07.14 at 14:57, <dario.faggioli@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On lun, 2014-07-21 at 12:46 +0100, Julien Grall wrote: >> On 07/21/2014 11:33 AM, George Dunlap wrote: >> > On 07/18/2014 09:26 PM, Julien Grall wrote: > >> >> diff --git a/xen/common/schedule.c b/xen/common/schedule.c >> >> index e9eb0bc..c44d047 100644 >> >> --- a/xen/common/schedule.c >> >> +++ b/xen/common/schedule.c >> >> @@ -311,7 +311,7 @@ int sched_move_domain(struct domain *d, struct >> >> cpupool *c) >> >> } >> >> /* Do we have vcpus already? If not, no need to update >> >> node-affinity */ >> >> - if ( d->vcpu ) >> >> + if ( d->vcpu && d->vcpu[0] != NULL ) >> >> domain_update_node_affinity(d); >> > > >> > Overall it seems like those checks for the existence of cpus should be >> > moved into domain_update_node_affinity(). The ASSERT() there I think is >> > just a sanity check to make sure we're not getting a ridiculous result >> > out of our calculation; but of course if there actually are no vcpus, >> > it's not ridiculous at all. >> > >> > One solution might be to change the ASSERT to >> > ASSERT(!cpumask_empty(dom_cpumask) || !d->vcpu || !d->vcpu[0]). Then we >> > could probably even remove the d->vcpu conditional when calling it. >> >> This solution also works for me. Which change do you prefer? >> > FWIW, I think I like changing the ASSERT() in > domain_update_node_affinity(), as George suggested (and perhaps with the > reordering Andrew suggested) better. +1 Jan _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
|
Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our |