Mukesh Rathor wrote:
Here are the details on the dom0 hang:
xen: 3.4.0
dom0: 2.6.18-128
dom0.vcpu0: spinning in schedule() on spinlock: spin_lock_irq(&rq->lock);
dom0.vcpu1: eip == ret after __HYPERVISOR_event_channel_op hypercall
Just of of curiosity, I set breakpoint at the above ret in kdb, and it
never got hit. So I wondered why vcpu1 is not getting scheculed, and
noticed that xen.schedule always schedules vcpu0. Two cpus on the box,
other one is mostly in idle.
anyways, I've turned lock debugging on in dom0 and reproducing it right
now.
thanks,
Mukesh
Ok, here's what I have found on this:
dom0 hang:
vcpu0 is trying to wakeup a task and in try_to_wake_up() calls
task_rq_lock(). since the task has cpu set to 1, it gets runq lock
for vcpu1. next it calls resched_task() which results in sending IPI
to vcpu1. for that, vcpu0 gets into the HYPERVISOR_event_channel_op
HCALL and is waiting to return. Meanwhile, vcpu1 got running, and is
spinning on it's runq lock in "schedule():spin_lock_irq(&rq->lock);",
that vcpu0 is holding (and is waiting to return from the HCALL).
As I had noticed before, vcpu0 never gets scheduled in xen. So
looking further into xen:
xen:
Both vcpu's are on the same runq, in this case cpu1. But the
priority of vcpu1 has been set to CSCHED_PRI_TS_BOOST. As a result,
the scheduler always picks vcpu1, and vcpu0 is starved. Also, I see in
kdb that the scheduler timer is not set on cpu 0. That would've
allowed csched_load_balance() to kick in on cpu0. [Also, on
cpu1, the accounting timer, csched_tick, is not set. Altho,
csched_tick() is running on cpu0, it only checks runq for cpu0.]
Looks like c/s 19500 changed csched_schedule():
- ret.time = MILLISECS(CSCHED_MSECS_PER_TSLICE);
+ ret.time = (is_idle_vcpu(snext->vcpu) ?
+ -1 : MILLISECS(CSCHED_MSECS_PER_TSLICE));
The quickest fix for us would be to just back that out.
BTW, just a comment on following (all in sched_credit.c):
if ( svc->pri == CSCHED_PRI_TS_UNDER &&
!(svc->flags & CSCHED_FLAG_VCPU_PARKED) )
{
svc->pri = CSCHED_PRI_TS_BOOST;
}
comibined with
if ( snext->pri > CSCHED_PRI_TS_OVER )
__runq_remove(snext);
Setting CSCHED_PRI_TS_BOOST as pri of vcpu seems dangerous. To me,
since csched_schedule() never checks for time accumulated by a
vcpu at pri CSCHED_PRI_TS_BOOST, that is same as pinning a vcpu to a
pcpu. if that vcpu never makes progress, essentially, the system
has lost a physical cpu. Optionally, csched_schedule() should always
check for cpu time accumulated and reduce the priority over time.
I can't tell right off if it already does that. or something like
that :)... my 2 cents.
thanks,
Mukesh
*** : starting 3 star campaign against overuse of macros!
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
|
Home