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

Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] xen/sched: core: kill unarmed timers on sched_init_vcpu() failure


  • To: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@xxxxxxxx>, Furkan Çalışkan <frn1furkan10@xxxxxxxxx>
  • From: Jürgen Groß <jgross@xxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Fri, 28 Aug 2026 17:14:44 +0200
  • Authentication-results: eu.smtp.expurgate.cloud; dkim=pass header.s=google header.d=suse.com header.i="@suse.com" header.h="Content-Type:In-Reply-To:Autocrypt:From:Content-Language:References:Cc:To:Subject:User-Agent:MIME-Version:Date:Message-ID"
  • Autocrypt: addr=jgross@xxxxxxxx; keydata= xsBNBFOMcBYBCACgGjqjoGvbEouQZw/ToiBg9W98AlM2QHV+iNHsEs7kxWhKMjrioyspZKOB ycWxw3ie3j9uvg9EOB3aN4xiTv4qbnGiTr3oJhkB1gsb6ToJQZ8uxGq2kaV2KL9650I1SJve dYm8Of8Zd621lSmoKOwlNClALZNew72NjJLEzTalU1OdT7/i1TXkH09XSSI8mEQ/ouNcMvIJ NwQpd369y9bfIhWUiVXEK7MlRgUG6MvIj6Y3Am/BBLUVbDa4+gmzDC9ezlZkTZG2t14zWPvx XP3FAp2pkW0xqG7/377qptDmrk42GlSKN4z76ELnLxussxc7I2hx18NUcbP8+uty4bMxABEB AAHNH0p1ZXJnZW4gR3Jvc3MgPGpncm9zc0BzdXNlLmNvbT7CwHkEEwECACMFAlOMcK8CGwMH CwkIBwMCAQYVCAIJCgsEFgIDAQIeAQIXgAAKCRCw3p3WKL8TL8eZB/9G0juS/kDY9LhEXseh mE9U+iA1VsLhgDqVbsOtZ/S14LRFHczNd/Lqkn7souCSoyWsBs3/wO+OjPvxf7m+Ef+sMtr0 G5lCWEWa9wa0IXx5HRPW/ScL+e4AVUbL7rurYMfwCzco+7TfjhMEOkC+va5gzi1KrErgNRHH kg3PhlnRY0Udyqx++UYkAsN4TQuEhNN32MvN0Np3WlBJOgKcuXpIElmMM5f1BBzJSKBkW0Jc Wy3h2Wy912vHKpPV/Xv7ZwVJ27v7KcuZcErtptDevAljxJtE7aJG6WiBzm+v9EswyWxwMCIO RoVBYuiocc51872tRGywc03xaQydB+9R7BHPzsBNBFOMcBYBCADLMfoA44MwGOB9YT1V4KCy vAfd7E0BTfaAurbG+Olacciz3yd09QOmejFZC6AnoykydyvTFLAWYcSCdISMr88COmmCbJzn sHAogjexXiif6ANUUlHpjxlHCCcELmZUzomNDnEOTxZFeWMTFF9Rf2k2F0Tl4E5kmsNGgtSa aMO0rNZoOEiD/7UfPP3dfh8JCQ1VtUUsQtT1sxos8Eb/HmriJhnaTZ7Hp3jtgTVkV0ybpgFg w6WMaRkrBh17mV0z2ajjmabB7SJxcouSkR0hcpNl4oM74d2/VqoW4BxxxOD1FcNCObCELfIS auZx+XT6s+CE7Qi/c44ibBMR7hyjdzWbABEBAAHCwF8EGAECAAkFAlOMcBYCGwwACgkQsN6d 1ii/Ey9D+Af/WFr3q+bg/8v5tCknCtn92d5lyYTBNt7xgWzDZX8G6/pngzKyWfedArllp0Pn fgIXtMNV+3t8Li1Tg843EXkP7+2+CQ98MB8XvvPLYAfW8nNDV85TyVgWlldNcgdv7nn1Sq8g HwB2BHdIAkYce3hEoDQXt/mKlgEGsLpzJcnLKimtPXQQy9TxUaLBe9PInPd+Ohix0XOlY+Uk QFEx50Ki3rSDl2Zt2tnkNYKUCvTJq7jvOlaPd6d/W0tZqpyy7KVay+K4aMobDsodB3dvEAs6 ScCnh03dDAFgIq5nsB11j3KPKdVoPlfucX2c7kGNH+LUMbzqV6beIENfNexkOfxHfw==
  • Cc: andrew.cooper3@xxxxxxxxxx, dfaggioli@xxxxxxxx, gwd@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx, xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Delivery-date: Fri, 28 Aug 2026 15:15:02 +0000
  • List-id: Xen developer discussion <xen-devel.lists.xenproject.org>

On 19.08.26 12:43, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 19.08.2026 12:39, Furkan Çalışkan wrote:
On 8/19/26 10:22, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 19.08.2026 07:15, Furkan Caliskan wrote:
--- a/xen/common/sched/core.c
+++ b/xen/common/sched/core.c
@@ -589,6 +589,9 @@ int sched_init_vcpu(struct vcpu *v)
      unit->priv = sched_alloc_udata(dom_scheduler(d), unit, d->sched_priv);
      if ( unit->priv == NULL )
      {
+        kill_timer(&v->periodic_timer);
+        kill_timer(&v->singleshot_timer);
+        kill_timer(&v->poll_timer);
          sched_free_unit(unit, v);
          rcu_read_unlock(&sched_res_rculock);
          return 1;

This almost, but not quite open-codes sched_destroy_vcpu(). Would be nice
if the cleanup logic was shared. The sched_free_unit() call there could be
leveraged here as well; what would need skipping are the sched_free_udata()
and sched_remove_unit(). And of course the RCU-locking would need sorting.

Would something like below be okay?

Maybe, but you need to ask the maintainers of this code, which I'm not a part
of. What I in particular can't easily judge is whether ...

--- a/xen/common/sched/core.c
+++ b/xen/common/sched/core.c
@@ -589,8 +589,8 @@ int sched_init_vcpu(struct vcpu *v)
      unit->priv = sched_alloc_udata(dom_scheduler(d), unit, d->sched_priv);
      if ( unit->priv == NULL )
      {
-        sched_free_unit(unit, v);
          rcu_read_unlock(&sched_res_rculock);
+        sched_destroy_vcpu(v);
          return 1;
      }

... this intermediate dropping of the lock is entirely okay (it looks to be
at the first glance).

Why don't you just replace sched_free_unit() with sched_destroy_vcpu()?

rcu_read_lock() calls can be nested, even for the same lock. This works because
there is no rcu_write_lock() (see comment in rcupdate.h).


Juergen

Attachment: OpenPGP_0xB0DE9DD628BF132F.asc
Description: OpenPGP public key

Attachment: OpenPGP_signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature


 


Rackspace

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