Re: [PATCH] xen: vcpu_info reinit error after 'xl save -c' & 'xl restore' on PVOPS VM which has multi-cpu

[Ouyang Zhaowei (Charles)]

On 2015.5.2 2:55, Boris Ostrovsky wrote:
> On 04/30/2015 03:27 AM, Ouyang Zhaowei (Charles) wrote:
>>
>> On 2015.4.29 5:31, Boris Ostrovsky wrote:
>>> On 04/28/2015 08:30 AM, Ouyang Zhaowei (Charles) wrote:
>>>> On 2015.4.26 7:31, Boris Ostrovsky wrote:
>>>>> On 04/24/2015 05:30 AM, Ouyang Zhaowei (Charles) wrote:
>>>>>> If a PVOPS VM has multi-cpu the vcpu_info of cpu0 is the member of the structure HYPERVISOR_shared_info,
>>>>>> and the others is not, but after 'xl save -c/restore' the vcpu_info will be reinitialized,
>>>>>> the vcpu_info of all the vcpus will be considered as the member of HYPERVISOR_shared_info.
>>>>>> This will cause the cpu1 and other cpu keep receiving interrupts, and the cpu0 is waiting them to
>>>>>> finish the job.
>>>>>> So we do not reinit the vcpu_info when PVOPS vm is doing 'xl save -c/restore'.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Charles Ouyang <ouyangzhaowei@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>>>>> ---
>>>>>>     arch/x86/xen/suspend.c | 3 ++-
>>>>>>     1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> diff --git a/arch/x86/xen/suspend.c b/arch/x86/xen/suspend.c
>>>>>> index d949769..b2bed45 100644
>>>>>> --- a/arch/x86/xen/suspend.c
>>>>>> +++ b/arch/x86/xen/suspend.c
>>>>>> @@ -32,7 +32,8 @@ static void xen_hvm_post_suspend(int suspend_cancelled)
>>>>>>     {
>>>>>>     #ifdef CONFIG_XEN_PVHVM
>>>>>>            int cpu;
>>>>>> -       xen_hvm_init_shared_info();
>>>>>> +       if (!suspend_cancelled)
>>>>>> +               xen_hvm_init_shared_info();
>>>>>>            xen_callback_vector();
>>>>>>            xen_unplug_emulated_devices();
>>>>>>            if (xen_feature(XENFEAT_hvm_safe_pvclock)) {
>>>>> Do we need to call other routines if suspend is canceled?
>>>>>
>>>>> Also, if suspend is canceled then we don't do xen_irq_resume() if that's what you meant by "vcpu_info will be reinitialized". Were you referring some other re-initialization?
>>>>>
>>>> Hi Boris,
>>>>
>>>> Sorry I didn't make myself clear.
>>>>
>>>> About the "vcpu_info reinitialize", I mean in the function "xen_hvm_init_shared_info()" the pointer "xen_vcpu" will be reset and all
>>>> point to HYPERVISOR_shared_info->vcpu_info[cpu].
>>>>
>>>> void __ref xen_hvm_init_shared_info(void)
>>>> ----
>>>> 1702          * When xen_hvm_init_shared_info is run at boot time only vcpu 0 is
>>>> 1703          * online but xen_hvm_init_shared_info is run at resume time too and
>>>> 1704          * in that case multiple vcpus might be online. */
>>>> 1705         for_each_online_cpu(cpu) {
>>>> 1706                 /* Leave it to be NULL. */
>>>> 1707                 if (cpu >= MAX_VIRT_CPUS)
>>>> 1708                         continue;
>>>> 1709                 per_cpu(xen_vcpu, cpu) = &HYPERVISOR_shared_info->vcpu_info[cpu];
>>>> 1710         }
>>>> 1711 }
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> But on Xen boot the init function "xen_start_kernel" only set the cpu0 to point to  HYPERVISOR_shared_info->vcpu_info[0]
>>>>
>>>> asmlinkage __visible void __init xen_start_kernel(void)
>>>
>>> We are talking about HVM guests here and xen_start_kernel is only called for PV.  But even if it was, xen_vcpu pointers for other VCPUs are set in xen_vcpu_setup(), which is called when non-boot VCPUs are coming up.
>>>
>>> And I wonder whether the actual problem is that we don't call xen_vcpu_setup() on canceled suspend (as we don't need to, really) and therefore if we call xen_hvm_init_shared_info() then per_cpu(xen_vcpu,cpu) for *non-boot* cpus is will become wrong.
>>>
>> Yes, you are right, in xen_vcpu_setup() non-boot VCPUs is set to point to xen_vcpu_info
>>
>> static void xen_vcpu_setup(int cpu)
>> ----
>>   208         vcpup = &per_cpu(xen_vcpu_info, cpu);
>> ...
>>   227                 /* This cpu is using the registered vcpu info, even if
>>   228                    later ones fail to. */
>>   229                 per_cpu(xen_vcpu, cpu) = vcpup;
>>
>> But on canceled suspend if we call xen_hvm_init_shared_info(), the non-boot VCPUS will be reset to point to HYPERVISOR_shared_info->vcpu_info[cpu] which is a wrong address.
>> So I suggest we don't call xen_hvm_init_shared_info() when suspend is canceled.
> 
> 
> Right, so can you resubmit the patch with updated commit message? (Just note there that the hypervisor continues assuming that vcpu_info is stored in per-cpu data which was set up by xen_vcpu_setup(), while the call to xen_hvm_init_shared_info() will now make the guest think that vcpu_info is in the shared page).
> 
> Thanks.
> -boris

OK, Thank for the advise, I'll resend the patch now

> 
>>
>>> -boris
>>>
>>>> ----
>>>> 1563         /* Don't do the full vcpu_info placement stuff until we have a
>>>> 1564            possible map and a non-dummy shared_info. */
>>>> 1565         per_cpu(xen_vcpu, 0) = &HYPERVISOR_shared_info->vcpu_info[0];
>>>> 1566
>>>> 1567         local_irq_disable();
>>>>
>>>> Other cpus are set to point to "xen_vcpu_info" in function xen_vcpu_setup().
>>>>
>>>> So after xl save -c/restore, the pointer xen_vcpu will be reset in function "xen_hvm_init_shared_info" and point to a wrong place.
>>>> This may cause all the cpus cannot handle irqs except cpu0, so IMHO it's not necessary to call xen_hvm_init_shared_info again if
>>>> suspend is canceled.
>>>>
>>>>> (The patch itself looks like the right thing to do though).
>>>>>
>>>>> -boris
>>>>>
>>>>> .
>>>>>
>>>
>>> .
>>>
> 
> 
> .
> 

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/