WARNING - OLD ARCHIVES

This is an archived copy of the Xen.org mailing list, which we have preserved to ensure that existing links to archives are not broken. The live archive, which contains the latest emails, can be found at http://lists.xen.org/
   
 
 
Xen 
 
Home Products Support Community News
 
   
 

xen-devel

Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH/RFC] Wrong account for cpus other than 0 on hotpl

To: Glauber de Oliveira Costa <gcosta@xxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH/RFC] Wrong account for cpus other than 0 on hotplug
From: Keir Fraser <Keir.Fraser@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2006 22:56:59 +0100
Cc: xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Delivery-date: Fri, 13 Oct 2006 15:08:09 -0700
Envelope-to: www-data@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <20061013211850.GA14367@xxxxxxxxxx>
List-help: <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=help>
List-id: Xen developer discussion <xen-devel.lists.xensource.com>
List-post: <mailto:xen-devel@lists.xensource.com>
List-subscribe: <http://lists.xensource.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>, <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=subscribe>
List-unsubscribe: <http://lists.xensource.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>, <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=unsubscribe>
Sender: xen-devel-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Thread-index: AcbvEoGiv+2BclsFEduu5gANk04WTA==
Thread-topic: [Xen-devel] [PATCH/RFC] Wrong account for cpus other than 0 on hotplug
User-agent: Microsoft-Entourage/11.2.5.060620
On 13/10/06 10:18 pm, "Glauber de Oliveira Costa" <gcosta@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> I just found that the offending code is in the HV itself, and not in the
> guest. In arch_do_vcpu_op(), we see that the information is only passed
> up to the guest, if the check (current == v) holds, which seems to be
> the
> true source of it. (taking the check away makes it work).

Makes sense. CPU0 sets up the area for the AP then immediately tries to read
from the area which isn't initialised at that point (because of the check
you point out).

> I can see no reason for this check to be there. If there is one, we
> could maybe make sure it holds. (maybe calling set_current(v) on HV
> side?)

Removing it will change the ABI. Assumption is that AP may have a different
virt->phys translation for that virtual address.

I'll look into fixing this before 3.0.3 goes out. I think it can be done
with a fairly small patch.

 -- Keir

> Your comments on this are , as usual, very welcome ;-)



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

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>