This is an archived copy of the Xen.org mailing list, which we have preserved to ensure that existing links to archives are not broken. The live archive, which contains the latest emails, can be found at http://lists.xen.org/
Home Products Support Community News


[Xen-devel] [PATCH] make x86_64 vcpu hotplug work like i386

To: Xen Devel <xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] make x86_64 vcpu hotplug work like i386
From: Ryan Grimm <grimm@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 8 Feb 2006 15:43:31 -0600
Delivery-date: Wed, 08 Feb 2006 21:55:32 +0000
Envelope-to: www-data@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
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/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>, <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=subscribe>
List-unsubscribe: <http://lists.xensource.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>, <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=unsubscribe>
Sender: xen-devel-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.6+20040907i

i386 vcpu hotplug seems to work reliably but x86_64 does not and i think
i have discovered why.  in x86-64, a cpu within a domu can be removed with
vcpu-set but subsequent calls do nothing.

after xenwatch_thread grabs the event triggered by the write to the
store, it calls the registered handler and never comes back.

eventually, __cpu_die in drivers/xen/core/smpboot.c spins while waiting for the
hypervisor to report that the vcpu is down:

while (HYPERVISOR_vcpu_op(VCPUOP_is_up, cpu, NULL)) {
    current->state = TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE;

the critical difference is that play_dead in arch/i386/process-xen.c and
arch/x86_64/process-xen.c differ.  the i386 version makes a VCPUOP_down
call to the hypervisor while the x86_64 version schedules a
SCHEDOP_yield among other things.

plopping the i386 version (patch below) into x86_64/process-xen.c makes
hotplugging in x86_64 behavior like i386.  does anyone know why the
x86_64 play_dead function is in the current state?


Signed-off-by: Ryan Grimm <grimm@xxxxxxxxxx>
diff -r 974ed9f73641 linux-2.6-xen-sparse/arch/x86_64/kernel/process-xen.c
--- a/linux-2.6-xen-sparse/arch/x86_64/kernel/process-xen.c     Wed Feb  8 
16:27:32 2006
+++ b/linux-2.6-xen-sparse/arch/x86_64/kernel/process-xen.c     Wed Feb  8 
09:32:46 2006
@@ -53,6 +53,7 @@
 #include <asm/kdebug.h>
 #include <xen/interface/dom0_ops.h>
 #include <xen/interface/physdev.h>
+#include <xen/interface/vcpu.h>
 #include <asm/desc.h>
 #include <asm/proto.h>
 #include <asm/hardirq.h>
@@ -143,22 +144,7 @@
 /* We halt the CPU with physical CPU hotplug */
 static inline void play_dead(void)
-       idle_task_exit();
-       wbinvd();
-       mb();
-       /* Ack it */
-       __get_cpu_var(cpu_state) = CPU_DEAD;
-       /* We shouldn't have to disable interrupts while dead, but
-        * some interrupts just don't seem to go away, and this makes
-        * it "work" for testing purposes. */
-       /* Death loop */
-       while (__get_cpu_var(cpu_state) != CPU_UP_PREPARE)
-               HYPERVISOR_sched_op(SCHEDOP_yield, 0);
-       local_irq_disable();
-       __flush_tlb_all();
-       cpu_set(smp_processor_id(), cpu_online_map);
+       HYPERVISOR_vcpu_op(VCPUOP_down, smp_processor_id(), NULL);

Xen-devel mailing list

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>