RE: [Xen-devel] Xen-4.0.0 RC9 Test Report. Xen: #21087 & Dom0: #4ebd13...

["Jiang, Yunhong" <yunhong.jiang@xxxxxxxxx>]

>-----Original Message-----
>From: Keir Fraser [mailto:keir.fraser@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
>Sent: Wednesday, April 07, 2010 3:04 PM
>To: Jiang, Yunhong; Xu, Jiajun; xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] Xen-4.0.0 RC9 Test Report. Xen: #21087 & Dom0:
>#4ebd13...
>
>On 06/04/2010 11:16, "Jiang, Yunhong" <yunhong.jiang@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>> Keir, really thanks for your patch very much. I should not take leave in last
>> Friday and this monday :( In fact, although your patch fixed the issue in my
>> mail, but there still another bug in PM side for CPU online/offline, which
>> will cause panic sometimes, so anyway, CPU online/offline can't pass our
>> stress test in xen 4.0.
>> I'm testing the patch. Seems it at least passed loop count 500, o*line all
>> APs, leaves only BSP online.
>> A potential issue in the patch is, in following change, it may trigger the
>> assert of __sync_lazy_execstate(), which assume current is idle_vcpu, 
>> however,
>> at this time, we can't gurrante this. A check for current vcpu is needed.
>
>I looked at the code again, and are you sure about this? As in, have you
>seen the assertion trigger? The check that current is the idle_vcpu is only
>made 'if(switch_required)', and that can only be the case if we are running
>the idle_vcpu! So I think my patch is good as it is, would you agree?

Aha, yes, you are right, the patch is correct.
I tested your patch in my first round (I added the _redudant_ check in the 
second round:$ ) and didn't trigger the assertion, the first round runs for 
about 900 round before triger another bug. So, yes, it's a wrong alarm.

--jyh

>
> -- Keir
>


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