[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
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). -borisxen_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
|
Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our |