George Dunlap wrote:
> Andre,
> 
> Can you try again with the attached patch?
Sure. Unfortunately (or is this a good sign?) the "Migration failed" 
message didn't trigger, I only saw various instances of the other 
printk, see the attached log file.
Migration is happening quite often, because Dom0 has 48 vCPUs and in the 
end they are squashed into less and less pCPUs. I guess that is the 
reason my I see it on my machine.

Regards,
Andre.

> 
> Thanks,
>  -George
> 
> On Tue, Feb 8, 2011 at 12:08 PM, George Dunlap
> <George.Dunlap@eu.citrix.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, Feb 8, 2011 at 5:43 AM, Juergen Gross
>> <juergen.gross@ts.fujitsu.com> wrote:
>>> On 02/07/11 16:55, George Dunlap wrote:
>>>> Juergen,
>>>>
>>>> What is supposed to happen if a domain is in cpupool0, and then all of
>>>> the cpus are taken out of cpupool0?  Is that possible?
>>> No. Cpupool0 can't be without any cpu, as Dom0 is always member of cpupool0.
>> If that's the case, then since Andre is running this immediately after
>> boot, he shouldn't be seeing any vcpus in the new pools; and all of
>> the dom0 vcpus should be migrated to cpupool0, right?  Is it possible
>> that migration process isn't happening properly?
>>
>> It looks like schedule.c:cpu_disable_scheduler() will try to migrate
>> all vcpus, and if it fails to migrate, it returns -EAGAIN so that the
>> tools will try again.  It's probably worth instrumenting that whole
>> code-path to make sure it actually happens as we expect.  Are we
>> certain, for example, that if a hypercall continued on another cpu
>> will actually return the new error value properly?
>>
>> Another minor thing: In cpupool.c:cpupool_unassign_cpu_helper(), why
>> is the cpu's bit set in cpupool_free_cpus without checking to see if
>> the cpu_disable_scheduler() call actually worked?  Shouldn't that also
>> be inside the if() statement?
>>
>>  -George
>>


-- 
Andre Przywara
AMD-OSRC (Dresden)
Tel: x29712