Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] cpupools: retry cpupool-destroy if domain in cpupool is dying

[Juergen Gross <juergen.gross@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On 14.05.2014 12:15, Jan Beulich wrote:
> > > > On 14.05.14 at 11:56, <juergen.gross@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On 14.05.2014 11:16, George Dunlap wrote:
> > > On Mon, May 12, 2014 at 12:49 PM, Juergen Gross
> > > <juergen.gross@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > > When a cpupool is destroyed just after the last domain has been stopped the
> > > > domain might already be removed from the domain list without being removed
> > > > from the cpupool.
> > > > It is easy to detect this situation and to return EAGAIN in this case which
> > > > is already handled in libxc by doing a retry.
> > > OK, I hate to be picky over two lines, but it still seems to me like
> > > this is papering over issues instead of dealing with them properly.
> > > The real problem here is that "for_each_domain_in_cpupool()" doesn't
> > > actually go over every domain in the cpupool.  Instead of making it so
> > > that it actually does, you're compensating for that fact in an ad-hoc
> > > fashion.
> > >
> > > Now as it happens, it looks like all the other current uses of
> > > for_each_domain_in_cpupool() work just fine if there are domains in
> > > the pool it doesn't see, as long as they're about to disappear.  But
> > > we've already seen a bug caused because of a situation where "don't
> > > see domains that are about to disappear" *does* actually cause a
> > > problem; working around it is just setting a trap for future
> > > developers to fall into.  (And who knows, there may already be a bug
> > > we haven't discovered in the other invocations of
> > > for_each_domain_in_cpupool()).
> > This isn't unique to for_each_domain_in_cpupool(). It is a problem for all
> > uses of for_each_domain() which are related to resources freed only in
> > complete_domain_destroy().
> Of which there shouldn't be that many, if any at all.
>
> What prevents cpupool_rm_domain() getting moved from
> complete_domain_destroy() to domain_destroy(), before the
> domain gets taken off the list? I actually assume that there are
> more things here that may not really need deferring until the
> last possible moment...
sched_destroy_vcpu() and sched_destroy_domain() have to happen before
cpupool_rm_domain(). This could be avoided if the domain would be moved to
cpupool0 in domain_destroy().

Hmm, doesn't sound too bad. This would be just symmetrical to domain
creation. What do you think?


Juergen

--
Juergen Gross                 Principal Developer Operating Systems
PSO PM&D ES&S SWE OS6                  Telephone: +49 (0) 89 62060 2932
Fujitsu                                   e-mail: juergen.gross@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Mies-van-der-Rohe-Str. 8                Internet: ts.fujitsu.com
D-80807 Muenchen                 Company details: ts.fujitsu.com/imprint.html

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel