| |
|
 |
|
 |
|
|
|
| |
|
|
xen-ia64-devel
RE: [Xen-ia64-devel] [PATCH] Xen panics when domvti is destroyed
Hi Anthony,
I think that vmx_final_setup_guest() is called asynchronously.
Because the secondary vcpus are waken by IPI, not control panel.
Actually we can observe the following log message asynchronously.
(XEN) arch_boot_vcpu: vcpu 1 awaken 00000000046bc180!
vmx_relinquish_vcpu_resources() is called after sched_destroy_domain().
If the scheduler stops vcpus completely in sched_destroy_domain(),
it might be OK. But it seems to be up to scheduler.
Thanks,
Kouya
Xu, Anthony writes:
> >From: Kouya SHIMURA [mailto:kouya@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> >Sent: 2006年10月11日 12:41
> >To: Xu, Anthony
> >Cc: xen-ia64-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >Subject: RE: [Xen-ia64-devel] [PATCH] Xen panics when domvti is destroyed
> >Hi Anthony,
> >
> >Thanks for your comment.
> >If it is safe that vmx_reliquish_vcpu_resouces(vcpu) is called
> >before the vcpu is booted, your modification looks better.
> >
> >I'm afraid of the race condition between vmx_final_setup_guest()
> >and vmx_relinquish_vcpu_resources().
> >Supposing such a condition, we might have to use some lock in order to
> >prevent memory leak. How do you think?
>
> I see your point,
> In this situation, vmx_final_setup_guest() and
> vmx_relinquish_vcpu_resources()
> are called by control panel, they should not be called serially not
> simultaneously.
>
>
> Anthony
_______________________________________________
Xen-ia64-devel mailing list
Xen-ia64-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-ia64-devel
|
|
|
| |
|
Home