[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH tip/core/rcu 02/20] x86: Use common outgoing-CPU-notification code
 
- To: paulmck@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
 
- From: Boris Ostrovsky <boris.ostrovsky@xxxxxxxxxx>
 
- Date: Tue, 03 Mar 2015 15:13:07 -0500
 
- Cc: tglx@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, laijs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx, bobby.prani@xxxxxxxxx,	peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, fweisbec@xxxxxxxxx, dvhart@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx,	x86@xxxxxxxxxx, oleg@xxxxxxxxxx, linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx,	rostedt@xxxxxxxxxxx, josh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, dhowells@xxxxxxxxxx,	edumazet@xxxxxxxxxx, mathieu.desnoyers@xxxxxxxxxxxx,	David Vrabel <david.vrabel@xxxxxxxxxx>, dipankar@xxxxxxxxxx,	xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, mingo@xxxxxxxxxx
 
- Delivery-date: Tue, 03 Mar 2015 20:15:27 +0000
 
- List-id: Xen developer discussion <xen-devel.lists.xen.org>
 
 
 
On 03/03/2015 02:42 PM, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
 
On Tue, Mar 03, 2015 at 02:17:24PM -0500, Boris Ostrovsky wrote:
 
On 03/03/2015 12:42 PM, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
 
  }
@@ -511,7 +508,8 @@ static void xen_cpu_die(unsigned int cpu)
                schedule_timeout(HZ/10);
        }
-       cpu_die_common(cpu);
+       (void)cpu_wait_death(cpu, 5);
+       /* FIXME: Are the below calls really safe in case of timeout? */
 
Not for HVM guests (PV guests will only reach this point after
target cpu has been marked as down by the hypervisor).
We need at least to have a message similar to what native_cpu_die()
prints on cpu_wait_death() failure. And I think we should not call
the two routines below (three, actually --- there is also
xen_teardown_timer() below, which is not part of the diff).
-boris
 
        xen_smp_intr_free(cpu);
        xen_uninit_lock_cpu(cpu);
 
 
So something like this, then?
        if (cpu_wait_death(cpu, 5)) {
                xen_smp_intr_free(cpu);
                xen_uninit_lock_cpu(cpu);
                xen_teardown_timer(cpu);
        }
 
        else
                pr_err("CPU %u didn't die...\n", cpu);
Easy change for me to make if so!
Or do I need some other check for HVM-vs.-PV guests, and, if so, what
would that check be?  And also if so, is it OK to online a PV guest's
CPU that timed out during its previous offline?
 
 
 I believe PV VCPUs will always be CPU_DEAD by the time we get here since 
we are (indirectly) waiting for this in the loop at the beginning of 
xen_cpu_die():
 'while (xen_pv_domain() && HYPERVISOR_vcpu_op(VCPUOP_is_up, cpu, NULL))' 
will exit only after 'HYPERVISOR_vcpu_op(VCPUOP_down, 
smp_processor_id()' in xen_play_dead(). Which happens after 
play_dead_common() has marked the cpu as CPU_DEAD.
So no test is needed.
Thanks.
-boris
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
 
 
    
     |