[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH 4/4] xen: sched/cpupool: properly update affinity when removing a cpu from a cpupool
On 07/03/2015 05:49 PM, Dario Faggioli wrote: And this time, do it right. In fact, a similar change was attempted in 93be8285a79c6 ("cpupools: update domU's node-affinity on the cpupool_unassign_cpu() path"). But that was buggy, and got reverted with 8395b67ab0b8a86. However, even though reverting was the right thing to do, it remains true that: - calling the function is better done in the cpupool cpu removal code, even if just for simmetry with the cpupool cpu adding path; - it is not necessary to call it during cpu teardown (for suspend or shutdown) code as we either are going down and will never come up (shutdown) or, when coming up, we want everything to be as before the tearing down process started, and so we would just undo any update made during the process. - calling it from the teardown path is not only unnecessary, but it can trigger an ASSERT(), in case we get, during the process, to remove the last online pcpu of a domain's node affinity: (XEN) Assertion '!cpumask_empty(dom_cpumask)' failed at domain.c:466 (XEN) ----[ Xen-4.6-unstable x86_64 debug=y Tainted: C ]---- ... ... ... (XEN) Xen call trace: (XEN) [<ffff82d0801055b9>] domain_update_node_affinity+0x113/0x240 (XEN) [<ffff82d08012e676>] cpu_disable_scheduler+0x334/0x3f2 (XEN) [<ffff82d08018bb8d>] __cpu_disable+0x313/0x36e (XEN) [<ffff82d080101424>] take_cpu_down+0x34/0x3b (XEN) [<ffff82d080130ad9>] stopmachine_action+0x70/0x99 (XEN) [<ffff82d08013274f>] do_tasklet_work+0x78/0xab (XEN) [<ffff82d080132a85>] do_tasklet+0x5e/0x8a (XEN) [<ffff82d08016478c>] idle_loop+0x56/0x6b (XEN) (XEN) (XEN) **************************************** (XEN) Panic on CPU 12: (XEN) Assertion '!cpumask_empty(dom_cpumask)' failed at domain.c:466 (XEN) **************************************** Therefore, for all these reasons, move the call from cpu_disable_schedule() to cpupool_unassign_cpu_helper(). While there, add some sanity checking (in the latter function), and make sure that scanning the domain list is done with domlist_read_lock held, at least when the system is 'live'. I re-tested the scenario described in here: http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.comp.emulators.xen.devel/235310 which is what led to the revert of 93be8285a79c6, and that is working ok after this commit. Signed-off-by: <dario.faggioli@xxxxxxxxxx> Acked-by: Juergen Gross <jgross@xxxxxxxx> --- Cc: Juergen Gross <jgross@xxxxxxxx> Cc: George Dunlap <george.dunlap@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> --- xen/common/cpupool.c | 18 ++++++++++++++++++ xen/common/schedule.c | 7 ++++++- 2 files changed, 24 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/xen/common/cpupool.c b/xen/common/cpupool.c index 563864d..79bcb21 100644 --- a/xen/common/cpupool.c +++ b/xen/common/cpupool.c @@ -297,12 +297,25 @@ static int cpupool_assign_cpu_locked(struct cpupool *c, unsigned int cpu) static long cpupool_unassign_cpu_helper(void *info) { int cpu = cpupool_moving_cpu; + struct cpupool *c = info; + struct domain *d; long ret; cpupool_dprintk("cpupool_unassign_cpu(pool=%d,cpu=%d)\n", cpupool_cpu_moving->cpupool_id, cpu); spin_lock(&cpupool_lock); + if ( c != cpupool_cpu_moving ) + { + ret = -EBUSY; + goto out; + } + + /* + * We need this for scanning the domain list, both in + * cpu_disable_scheduler(), and at the bottom of this function. + */ + rcu_read_lock(&domlist_read_lock); ret = cpu_disable_scheduler(cpu); cpumask_set_cpu(cpu, &cpupool_free_cpus); if ( !ret ) @@ -319,6 +332,11 @@ static long cpupool_unassign_cpu_helper(void *info) cpupool_cpu_moving = NULL; } + for_each_domain_in_cpupool(d, c) + { + domain_update_node_affinity(d); + } + rcu_read_unlock(&domlist_read_lock); out: spin_unlock(&cpupool_lock); cpupool_dprintk("cpupool_unassign_cpu ret=%ld\n", ret); diff --git a/xen/common/schedule.c b/xen/common/schedule.c index eac8804..a1840c9 100644 --- a/xen/common/schedule.c +++ b/xen/common/schedule.c @@ -652,6 +652,12 @@ int cpu_disable_scheduler(unsigned int cpu) if ( c == NULL ) return ret; + /* + * We'd need the domain RCU lock, but: + * - when we are called from cpupool code, it's acquired there already; + * - when we are called for CPU teardown, we're in stop-machine context, + * so that's not be a problem. + */ for_each_domain_in_cpupool ( d, c ) { for_each_vcpu ( d, v ) @@ -741,7 +747,6 @@ int cpu_disable_scheduler(unsigned int cpu) ret = -EAGAIN; } } - domain_update_node_affinity(d); } return ret; _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
|
Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our |