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] libxl: do not rely on guest to respond when forc

On Tue, 2011-03-08 at 14:23 +0000, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
> On Tue, 8 Mar 2011, Ian Campbell wrote:
> > On Tue, 2011-03-08 at 12:56 +0000, Gianni Tedesco wrote:
> > > On Tue, 2011-03-08 at 11:49 +0000, Ian Campbell wrote:
> > > > # HG changeset patch
> > > > # User Ian Campbell <ian.campbell@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > # Date 1299584929 0
> > > > # Node ID 5084214b8983045d789a86c01e7a0fede46b5e58
> > > > # Parent  0e3211b5c4da98d170ed665c221bcb00e771fc56
> > > > libxl: do not rely on guest to respond when forcing pci device removal
> > > > 
> > > > This is consistent with the expected semantics of a forced device
> > > > removal and also avoids a delay when destroying an HVM domain which
> > > > either does not support hot unplug (does not respond to SCI) or has
> > > > crashed.
> > > > 
> > > > Signed-off-by: Ian Campbell <ian.campbell@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > 
> > > > diff -r 0e3211b5c4da -r 5084214b8983 tools/libxl/libxl_pci.c
> > > > --- a/tools/libxl/libxl_pci.c   Tue Mar 08 11:13:12 2011 +0000
> > > > +++ b/tools/libxl/libxl_pci.c   Tue Mar 08 11:48:49 2011 +0000
> > > > @@ -866,7 +866,7 @@ static int do_pci_remove(libxl__gc *gc, 
> > > >  
> > > >          /* Remove all functions at once atomically by only signalling
> > > >           * device-model for function 0 */
> > > > -        if ( (pcidev->vdevfn & 0x7) == 0 ) {
> > > > +        if ( !force && (pcidev->vdevfn & 0x7) == 0 ) {
> > > >              xs_write(ctx->xsh, XBT_NULL, path, "pci-rem", 
> > > > strlen("pci-rem"));
> > > 
> > > Shouldn't we maybe send the pci-rem when force removing to give the
> > > guest a chance to do something if it can.
> > 
> > My concern was just that if this wasn't reacted to by qemu it might
> > interfere with us sending other requests in the future (I don't know and
> > haven't checked if that is the case).
> 
> The guest OS should be able to shutdown properly no matter if it
> receives the hot-unplug event or not.

Or it may have crashed.

> And Xen should be able to clean up the resources in use no matter if the
> guest OS handles the hot-unplug event or not.
> Therefore avoiding the hot-unplug code path on shutdown is perfectly
> reasonable.

Note that this change impacts the destroy path but not the shutdown
path.

Avoiding any need to do a graceful teardown is part of the point of the
difference between destroy and shutdown.

Ian.


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