Re: [Xen-devel] Hypervisor crash(!) on xl cpupool-numa-split

To:	Andre Przywara <andre.przywara@xxxxxxx>
Subject:	Re: [Xen-devel] Hypervisor crash(!) on xl cpupool-numa-split
From:	George Dunlap <George.Dunlap@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date:	Wed, 9 Feb 2011 12:27:27 +0000
Cc:	Juergen Gross <juergen.gross@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "Diestelhorst, Stephan" <Stephan.Diestelhorst@xxxxxxx>
Delivery-date:	Wed, 09 Feb 2011 04:29:03 -0800
Dkim-signature:	v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=iML0iCc9BjNldyEp60suIAromuHnrHpn+H+mH6zKoGQ=; b=JF92nWsZsvTPwyzEKptHkPWVjZLcw6yifdRxL2iSZDWr2NesP9RAqT6MTE+7rfiIc7 6oYhcQoQR+Xs0ZP+jUvlJLro/WhMrMx2kc82l/NYsRKEYg4wL5ZJOfgMb01Dlg9kYTVI F4JhaI0NDFfIjfcalpRDijJ9oS+gPynVTrn2k=
Domainkey-signature:	a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; b=LFkhJ28KsXVRcNfyHULiS7FxuHcS/wAyeJ8sNYkmizK9GgsfYQmioOmvlpMTSF7F+v ZcvMyVefMZ6fUdWUH6igOTfAnPeH9ASgV2do1nEMZLOURYOHkSHjNLAQadCHZAuYZQZj 7UlsZvaANi129dLgGII8AzGIyqmH0v8TYpkLA=
Envelope-to:	www-data@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to:	<AANLkTi=MiELBnPFvb6-jzVth+T7aKxP5JMFhVh3Crdmo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
List-help:	<mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=help>
List-id:	Xen developer discussion <xen-devel.lists.xensource.com>
List-post:	<mailto:xen-devel@lists.xensource.com>
List-subscribe:	<http://lists.xensource.com/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>, <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=subscribe>
List-unsubscribe:	<http://lists.xensource.com/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>, <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=unsubscribe>
References:	<4D41FD3A.5090506@xxxxxxx> <201102021539.06664.stephan.diestelhorst@xxxxxxx> <4D4974D1.1080503@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <201102021701.05665.stephan.diestelhorst@xxxxxxx> <4D4A43B7.5040707@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <4D4A72D8.3020502@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <4D4C08B6.30600@xxxxxxx> <4D4FE7E2.9070605@xxxxxxx> <4D4FF452.6060508@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <AANLkTinoRUQC_suVYFM9-x3D00KvYofq3R=XkCQUj6RP@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <4D50D80F.9000007@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <AANLkTinKJUAXhiXpKui_XX8XCD6T5fmzNARwHE6Fjafv@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <AANLkTinP0z9GynF1RFd8RwzWuqvxYdb+UBE+7xKpX6D4@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <4D517051.10402@xxxxxxx> <AANLkTi=MiELBnPFvb6-jzVth+T7aKxP5JMFhVh3Crdmo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sender:	xen-devel-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Sorry, forgot the patch...
 -G

On Wed, Feb 9, 2011 at 12:27 PM, George Dunlap
<George.Dunlap@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 8, 2011 at 4:33 PM, Andre Przywara <andre.przywara@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>> (XEN) cpu_disable_scheduler: Migrating d0v18 from cpu 24
>> (XEN) cpu_disable_scheduler: Migrating d0v34 from cpu 24
>> (XEN) cpu_disable_scheduler: Migrating d0v42 from cpu 24
>> (XEN) cpu_disable_scheduler: Migrating d0v18 from cpu 25
>> (XEN) cpu_disable_scheduler: Migrating d0v34 from cpu 25
>> (XEN) cpu_disable_scheduler: Migrating d0v42 from cpu 25
>> (XEN) cpu_disable_scheduler: Migrating d0v18 from cpu 26
>> (XEN) cpu_disable_scheduler: Migrating d0v32 from cpu 26
>> (XEN) cpu_disable_scheduler: Migrating d0v42 from cpu 26
>> (XEN) cpu_disable_scheduler: Migrating d0v18 from cpu 27
>> (XEN) cpu_disable_scheduler: Migrating d0v24 from cpu 27
>> (XEN) cpu_disable_scheduler: Migrating d0v32 from cpu 27
>> (XEN) cpu_disable_scheduler: Migrating d0v42 from cpu 27
>> (XEN) cpu_disable_scheduler: Migrating d0v3 from cpu 28
>> (XEN) cpu_disable_scheduler: Migrating d0v18 from cpu 28
>> (XEN) cpu_disable_scheduler: Migrating d0v25 from cpu 28
>> (XEN) cpu_disable_scheduler: Migrating d0v32 from cpu 28
>> (XEN) cpu_disable_scheduler: Migrating d0v39 from cpu 28
>> (XEN) cpu_disable_scheduler: Migrating d0v3 from cpu 29
>
> Interesting -- what seems to happen here is that as cpus are disabled,
> vcpus are "shovelled" in an accumulative fashion from one cpu to the
> next:
> * v18,34,42 start on cpu 24.
> * When 24 is brought down, they're all migrated to 25; then when 25 is
> brougth down, to 26, then to 27
> * v24 is running on cpu 27, so when 27 is brought down, v24 is added to the 
> mix
> * v3 is running on cpu 28, so all of them plus v3 are shoveled onto cpu 29.
>
> While that behavior may not be ideal, it should certainly be bug-free.
>
> Another interesting thing to note is that the bug happened on pcpu 32,
> but there were no advertised migrations from that cpu.
>
> Andre, can you fold the attached patch into your testing?
>
> Thanks for all your work on this.
>
>  -George
>

cpupools-debug-curr-not-idle.diff
Description: Text Data

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

WARNING - OLD ARCHIVES

xen-devel

Re: [Xen-devel] Hypervisor crash(!) on xl cpupool-numa-split