Re: backport requests for 4.x-testing

[Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@oracle.com>]

On Fri, Mar 30, 2012 at 12:20:05AM +0800, Teck Choon Giam wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 11:56 PM, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk
> <konrad.wilk@oracle.com> wrote:
> >> >> > Applied 23225 and 24013. The other, toolstack-related, patches I will leave
> >> >> > for a tools maintainer to ack or apply.
> >> >>
> >> > Hey Teck,
> >> >
> >> > Thanks for reporting!
> >> >
> >> >> With the two backport patches committed in xen-4.1-testing (changeset
> >> >> 23271:13741fd6253b), xl list or xl create domU will cause 100% CPU and
> >> >
> >> > xl list?
> >>
> >> After a reboot with no domU running, xl list is fine but if I start a
> >> hvm domU will be stuck and caused high load then open another ssh
> >> terminal to issue xl list will stuck as well.
> >
> > This fix fixes it for me:
> >
> > diff -r 13741fd6253b xen/arch/x86/domain.c
> > --- a/xen/arch/x86/domain.c     Thu Mar 29 10:20:58 2012 +0100
> > +++ b/xen/arch/x86/domain.c     Thu Mar 29 11:44:54 2012 -0400
> > @@ -558,9 +558,9 @@ int arch_domain_create(struct domain *d,
> >         d->arch.is_32bit_pv = d->arch.has_32bit_shinfo =
> >             (CONFIG_PAGING_LEVELS != 4);
> >
> > -        spin_lock_init(&d->arch.e820_lock);
> >     }
> >
> > +    spin_lock_init(&d->arch.e820_lock);
> >     memset(d->arch.cpuids, 0, sizeof(d->arch.cpuids));
> >     for ( i = 0; i < MAX_CPUID_INPUT; i++ )
> >     {
> > @@ -605,8 +605,8 @@ void arch_domain_destroy(struct domain *
> >
> >     if ( is_hvm_domain(d) )
> >         hvm_domain_destroy(d);
> > -    else
> > -        xfree(d->arch.e820);
> > +
> > +    xfree(d->arch.e820);
> >
> >     vmce_destroy_msr(d);
> >     free_domain_pirqs(d);
> >
> >
> > The issue is that upstream we have two 'domain structs' - one for PV and
> > one for HVM. In 4.1 it is just 'arch_domain' and the calls to create
> > the guests are going through the same interface (at least using xl, with
> > xm they are seperate). And I only initialized the spinlock in the PV case,
> > but not in the HVM case. This fix to the backport resolves the problem.
> 
> Thanks for your fast and prompt fix ;)
> 
> I am compiling with the fix patch you provided on top of
> xen-4.1-testing changeset 23271:13741fd6253b.  Will test and report
> back if you are interested ;)

Yes please! If you find other issues, please report them immediately! Thanks
again for doing this.