[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH 1/8] cpupools: fix state when downing a CPU failed

>>> On 16.07.18 at 14:47, <jgross@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 16/07/18 14:19, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>>>> On 16.07.18 at 13:47, <jgross@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> On 16/07/18 11:17, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>>>>>> On 13.07.18 at 11:02, <jgross@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>> On 11/07/18 14:04, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>>>>> While I've run into the issue with further patches in place which no
>>>>>> longer guarantee the per-CPU area to start out as all zeros, the
>>>>>> CPU_DOWN_FAILED processing looks to have the same issue: By not zapping
>>>>>> the per-CPU cpupool pointer, cpupool_cpu_add()'s (indirect) invocation
>>>>>> of schedule_cpu_switch() will trigger the "c != old_pool" assertion
>>>>>> there.
>>>>>> Clearing the field during CPU_DOWN_PREPARE is too early (afaict this
>>>>>> should not happen before cpu_disable_scheduler()). Clearing it in
>>>>>> CPU_DEAD and CPU_DOWN_FAILED would be an option, but would take the same
>>>>>> piece of code twice. Since the field's value shouldn't matter while the
>>>>>> CPU is offline, simply clear it in CPU_ONLINE and CPU_DOWN_FAILED, but
>>>>>> only for other than the suspend/resume case (which gets specially
>>>>>> handled in cpupool_cpu_remove()).
>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@xxxxxxxx>
>>>>>> ---
>>>>>> TBD: I think this would better call schedule_cpu_switch(cpu, NULL) from
>>>>>>      cpupool_cpu_remove(), but besides that - as per above - likely
>>>>>>      being too early, that function has further prereqs to be met. It
>>>>>>      also doesn't look as if cpupool_unassign_cpu_helper() could be used
>>>>>>      there.
>>>>>> --- a/xen/common/cpupool.c
>>>>>> +++ b/xen/common/cpupool.c
>>>>>> @@ -778,6 +778,8 @@ static int cpu_callback(
>>>>>>      {
>>>>>>      case CPU_DOWN_FAILED:
>>>>>>      case CPU_ONLINE:
>>>>>> +        if ( system_state <= SYS_STATE_active )
>>>>>> +            per_cpu(cpupool, cpu) = NULL;
>>>>>>          rc = cpupool_cpu_add(cpu);
>>>>> Wouldn't it make more sense to clear the field in cpupool_cpu_add()
>>>>> which already is testing system_state?
>>>> Hmm, this may be a matter of taste: I consider the change done here
>>>> a prereq to calling the function in the first place. As said in the
>>>> description, I actually think this should come earlier, and it's just that
>>>> I can't see how to cleanly do so.
>> You didn't comment on this one at all, yet it matters for how a v2
>> is supposed to look like.
> My comment was thought to address this question, too. cpupool_cpu_add()
> is handling the special case of resuming explicitly, where the old cpu
> assignment to a cpupool is kept. So I believe setting
>   per_cpu(cpupool, cpu) = NULL
> in the else clause of cpupool_cpu_add() only is better.

Well, okay then. You're the maintainer.

>>>>> Modifying the condition in cpupool_cpu_add() to
>>>>>   if ( system_state <= SYS_STATE_active )
>>>>> at the same time would have the benefit to catch problems in case
>>>>> suspending cpus is failing during SYS_STATE_suspend (I'd expect
>>>>> triggering the first ASSERT in schedule_cpu_switch() in this case).
>>>> You mean the if() there, not the else? If so - how would the "else"
>>>> body then ever be reached? IOW if anything I could only see the
>>>> "else" to become "else if ( system_state <= SYS_STATE_active )".
>>> Bad wording on my side.
>>> I should have written "the condition in cpupool_cpu_add() should match
>>> if ( system_state <= SYS_STATE_active )."
>>> So: "if ( system_state > SYS_STATE_active )", as the test is for the
>>> other case.
>> I'd recommend against this, as someone adding a new SYS_STATE_*
>> past suspend/resume would quite likely miss this one. The strong
>> ordering of states imo should only be used for active and lower states.
>> But yes, I could see the if() there to become suspend || resume to
>> address the problem you describe.
> Yes, this would seem to be a better choice here.
>> Coming back to your DOWN_FAILED consideration: Why are you
>> thinking this can't happen during suspend? disable_nonboot_cpus()
>> uses plain cpu_down() after all.
> Right.
> DOWN_FAILED is used only once, and that is in cpu_down() after the step
> CPU_DOWN_PREPARE returned an error. And CPU_DOWN_PREPARE is only used
> for cpufreq driver where it never returns an error, and for cpupools
> which don't matter here, as only other components failing at step
> CPU_DOWN_PREPARE would lead to calling cpupool/DOWN_FAILED.

What about the stop_machine_run() failure case?


Xen-devel mailing list



Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our
servers 24x7x365 and backed by RackSpace's Fanatical Support®.