 Home |
Products |
Support |
Community |
News |
xen-devel
Re: [Xen-devel] Regression introduced by changeset "evtchn: Freepirq_to_
| To: | Jan Beulich <JBeulich@xxxxxxxxxx>, Simon Horman <horms@xxxxxxxxxxxx> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: [Xen-devel] Regression introduced by changeset "evtchn: Freepirq_to_evtchn/pirq_mask arrays on domain destruction." |
| From: | Keir Fraser <keir.fraser@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Fri, 29 May 2009 09:11:41 +0100 |
| Cc: | "xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Delivery-date: | Fri, 29 May 2009 01:12:16 -0700 |
| Envelope-to: | www-data@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |
| In-reply-to: | <4A1FA8AD02000078000033AF@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| 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/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>, <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=subscribe> |
| List-unsubscribe: | <http://lists.xensource.com/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>, <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=unsubscribe> |
| Sender: | xen-devel-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |
| Thread-index: | AcngLdgN5lY6C5W1THuQfSLDpZ+/RQAB0C33 |
| Thread-topic: | [Xen-devel] Regression introduced by changeset "evtchn: Freepirq_to_evtchn/pirq_mask arrays on domain destruction." |
| User-agent: | Microsoft-Entourage/12.17.0.090302 |
On 29/05/2009 08:19, "Jan Beulich" <JBeulich@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Yeah, evtchn_destroy() runs much earlier than arch_domain_destroy(). > > Keir, is there any reason evtchn_destroy() cannot be deferred accordingly? > If there is, then un-tying the freeing of pirq_mask and/or pirq_to_evtchn > from evtchn_destroy() would be needed. I have to admit that it seems not > logical even in the original code to have IRQ (and hence indirectly evtchn) > related activities going on for a domain past evtchn_destroy(). There are subtleties which make it a bad idea to defer evtchn_destroy() to complete_domain_destroy(). Changeset 15465 actually deliberately moved evtchn_destroy() earlier, and that cleaned up some issues. Moving the xfree()s to complete_domain_destryoy was my plan B in this case. -- Keir _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel |
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: [Xen-devel] Regression introduced by changeset "evtchn: Freepirq_to_evtchn/pirq_mask arrays on domain destruction.", Jan Beulich |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: Distro kernel and 'virtualization server' vs. 'server that sometimes runs virtual instances' rant (was: Re: [Xen-devel] Re: [GIT PULL] Xen APIC hooks (with io_apic_ops)), Tim Post |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: [Xen-devel] Regression introduced by changeset "evtchn: Freepirq_to_evtchn/pirq_mask arrays on domain destruction.", Jan Beulich |
| Next by Thread: | [Xen-devel] [patch] xm: Unify the output of pci-list, Simon Horman |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |
