Re: [Xen-devel] Migration bug added by commit 2df1aa01bef7366798248ac6d03cfb42048b003d

[Paul Durrant <Paul.Durrant@xxxxxxxxxx>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jan Beulich [mailto:JBeulich@xxxxxxxx]
> Sent: 06 July 2015 11:03
> To: Don Slutz
> Cc: Paul Durrant; xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] Migration bug added by commit
> 2df1aa01bef7366798248ac6d03cfb42048b003d
> 
> >>> On 29.06.15 at 17:14, <don.slutz@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On 06/29/15 10:03, Paul Durrant wrote:
> >> I think this patch should do it for now:
> >>
> >> diff --git a/xen/arch/x86/hvm/emulate.c b/xen/arch/x86/hvm/emulate.c
> >> index a4d7225..cc6130c 100644
> >> --- a/xen/arch/x86/hvm/emulate.c
> >> +++ b/xen/arch/x86/hvm/emulate.c
> >> @@ -183,7 +183,7 @@ static int hvmemul_do_io(
> >>           else
> >>           {
> >>               rc = hvm_send_assist_req(s, &p);
> >> -            if ( rc != X86EMUL_RETRY )
> >> +            if ( rc != X86EMUL_RETRY || curr->domain->is_shutting_down )
> >
> > I do not know enough about "is_shutting_down" to agree.  What is clear
> > is that
> > this test is not the same as "!vcpu_start_shutdown_deferral(curr)".
> 
> Together with Paul's reply the main question appears to have
> remained un-answered: Does the patch suggested by Paul address
> the problem you observed?
>

I can at least say that the patch definitely resolved a regression seen in 
automated testing of migration of Windows Server 2003 VMs on XenServer.

  Paul

 
> Jan


_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel