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

Re: [Xen-devel] [xen-unstable test] 113562: regressions - FAIL

On 09/18/2017 12:11 PM, Juergen Gross wrote:
> On 18/09/17 13:05, George Dunlap wrote:
>> On 09/18/2017 11:46 AM, Roger Pau Monné wrote:
>>> On Mon, Sep 18, 2017 at 11:15:03AM +0100, George Dunlap wrote:
>>>> On 09/18/2017 10:45 AM, Roger Pau Monné wrote:
>>>>> On Mon, Sep 18, 2017 at 10:37:58AM +0100, Wei Liu wrote:
>>>>>> On Mon, Sep 18, 2017 at 08:36:03AM +0000, osstest service owner wrote:
>>>>>>> flight 113562 xen-unstable real [real]
>>>>>>> http://logs.test-lab.xenproject.org/osstest/logs/113562/
>>>>>>> Regressions :-(
>>>>>>> Tests which did not succeed and are blocking,
>>>>>>> including tests which could not be run:
>>>>>>>  test-amd64-amd64-xl-credit2  15 guest-saverestore        fail REGR. 
>>>>>>> vs. 113387
>>>>>> There appears to be a bug:
>>>>>> http://logs.test-lab.xenproject.org/osstest/logs/113562/test-amd64-amd64-xl-credit2/serial-godello0.log
>>>>>> Sep 18 01:14:28.803062 (XEN) Xen BUG at spinlock.c:47
>>>>> Seem to be caused because budget_lock is sometimes locked with irqsave
>>>>> while others not.
>>>> Just wondering where you're getting the budget lock from?  The call
>>>> stack in that link makes it look like it's the RCU clean-up triggering a
>>>> domain destroy.  (Haven't looked deeper into the specific line numbers.)
>>> Just skimmed over the commit and jumped into conclusions too fast. As
>>> you mention later the issue is calling xfree with interrupts disabled
>>> in csched2_free_domdata.
>>> I would rather prefer budget_lock to be always locked with the
>>> irqsave/restore variant to make what you mention above more obvious,
>>> but that's just a question of taste.
>> I *think* at some point in the past we had a discussion about this and
>> someone (perhaps Jan?) said if we always know the irqs are disabled we
>> shouldn't call the _irqsave() version, to save cpu cycles.
>> Personally I think the ASSERT()s are clear enough to people familiar
>> with the scheduling code.
> Why don't we add _irqoff variants of the locks containing the ASSERTion
> that interrupts are really off? This would save the additional
> instructions of the irqsave/restore variants and make it very clear that
> no violation of the lock interface is happening.

I'd be OK with such a patch -- but obviously at this point it would have
to wait for 4.11. :-)


Xen-devel mailing list



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