RE: [Xen-ia64-devel] [PATCH] Fix freeing of privregs structurefordomVTi

[Masaki Kanno <kanno.masaki@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Sorry, I forgot to attach test results.

 - Booting Xen and booting dom0-SMP(16 CPUs) test passed. 
 - Repeating test of creation and destruction of guest domain 
   passed, and I was not able to find memory leak in xenheap. 
  -- domU-UP
  -- domU-SMP(16 CPUs)
  -- domVTi-UP
  -- domVTi-SMP(16 CPUs)

Best regards,
 Kan

>Hi,
>
>I made a patch to modify initialization of VCPU of dom0/domU. 
>
>1) This patch moved some processing from vcpu_initialise() and 
>   added a new function vcpu_late_initialise(). 
>   It executes the following initializations for VCPU of 
>   dom0/domU. 
>    - Allocate the VHPT 
>    - Allocate the privregs area and assign these pages into 
>      guest pseudo physical address space. 
>    - Set the tlbflush_timestamp.
>
>   It is executed in the following sequence. 
>
>   dom0:
>     start_kernel()
>       ->domain_create()
>       ->alloc_vcpu(VCPU0)
>         ->alloc_vcpu_struct(VCPU0)
>         ->vcpu_initialise(VCPU0)
>       ->vcpu_late_initialise(VCPU0)
>     
>       ->construct_dom0
>         ->alloc_vcpu(othe VCPUs)
>           ->alloc_vcpu_struct(other VCPUs)
>           ->vcpu_initialise(other VCPUs)
>     
>     ia64_hypercall(FW_HYPERCALL_IPI)
>       ->fw_hypercall_ipi(XEN_SAL_BOOT_RENDEZ_VEC)
>         ->arch_set_info_guest(other VCPUs)
>           ->vcpu_late_initialise(other VCPUs)
>
>   domU:
>     do_domctl(XEN_DOMCTL_createdomain)
>       ->domain_create()
>     
>     do_domctl(XEN_DOMCTL_max_vcpus)
>       ->alloc_vcpu(all VCPUs)
>         ->alloc_vcpu_struct(all VCPUs)
>         ->vcpu_initialise(all VCPUs)
>     
>     do_domctl(XEN_DOMCTL_setvcpucontext)
>       ->set_info_guest(VCPU0)
>         ->arch_set_info_guest(VCPU0)
>           ->vcpu_late_initialise(VCPU0)
>     
>     ia64_hypercall(FW_HYPERCALL_IPI)
>       ->fw_hypercall_ipi(XEN_SAL_BOOT_RENDEZ_VEC)
>         ->arch_set_info_guest(other VCPUs)
>           ->vcpu_late_initialise(other VCPUs)
>
>
>2) This patch modified the domain_set_shared_info_va(). 
>   Currently, initialization of arch.privregs->interrupt_mask_addr 
>   of all VCPUs is executed in domain_set_shared_info_va(). 
>   However, allocation of privregs area is late by modified of 1). 
>   Therefore, this patch modified initialization of 
>   arch.privregs->interrupt_mask_addr to the following sequence. 
>
>   dom0 and domU:
>     ia64_hypercall(FW_HYPERCALL_SET_SHARED_INFO_VA)
>       ->domain_set_shared_info_va()
>         Initialize interrupt_mask_addr of VCPU0
>     
>     ia64_hypercall(FW_HYPERCALL_IPI)
>       ->fw_hypercall_ipi(XEN_SAL_BOOT_RENDEZ_VEC)
>         ->arch_set_info_guest(other VCPUs)
>           ->vcpu_late_initialise(other VCPUs)
>           Initialize interrupt_mask_addr of other VCPUs
>
>
>Signed-off-by: Masaki Kanno <kanno.masaki@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>
>Best regards,
> Kan
>
>>Hi kanno,
>>
>>> 
>>> I'll try it. Could you wait a few days?
>>> 
>>That's ok.
>>Thanks for taking this
>>
>>Anthony
>>
>>Masaki Kanno write on 2007年1月12日 16:18:
>>> Hi Anthiny,
>>> 
>>>> Masaki Kanno write on 2007年1月11日 16:24:
>>>>> Hi,
>>>> 
>>>> Hi Kanno,
>>>> 
>>>> Good catch!
>>>> 
>>>> I have below comment.
>>>> 
>>>> The root cause is,  vhpt and privregs for xeno are allocated at
>>>> hypercall XEN-DOMCTL_max_vcpus, at that time d->arch.is_vti is not
>>>> set yet. 
>>>> When d->arch.is_vti is set, vhpt and privregs allocated for xeno are
>>>> released, and vhpt and privregs for VTI are allocated at this time.
>>>> 
>>>> This logic is a little bit ugly.
>>> 
>>> I also think so.
>>> 
>>>> Can we postpone vhpt and privregs allocation until d->arch.is_vti is
>>>> set? 
>>> 
>>> I'll try it. Could you wait a few days?
>>> 
>>> Best regards,
>>>  Kan
>>> 
>>>> One place is at xen/arch/ia64/xen/arch_set_info_guest,
>>>> 
>>>> If(d->arch.is_vti)
>>>>    vmx_final_setup_guest(v);
>>>> Else{
>>>> /*TODO  We can move vhpt and privregs logic for xeno here. */
>>>> 
>>>> }
>>>> 
>>>> What's your opinioin?
>>>> 
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> Anthony
>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> When I repeated creation and destruction of domVTi, I found a bug.
>>>>> It is memory leak of privregs structure.
>>>>> This patch fixes the bug.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Masaki Kanno <kanno.masaki@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>>>> 
>>>>> Best regards,
>>>>>  Kan
>
>-------------------------------text/plain-------------------------------
>_______________________________________________
>Xen-ia64-devel mailing list
>Xen-ia64-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>http://lists.xensource.com/xen-ia64-devel


_______________________________________________
Xen-ia64-devel mailing list
Xen-ia64-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-ia64-devel