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

["Jan Beulich" <JBeulich@xxxxxxxx>]

>>> On 06.07.15 at 12:08, <Paul.Durrant@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>  -----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.

Good. Not even having got close to the end of unread mails, I
suppose I'll find it somewhere as a formal submission...

Jan


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