On Tue, Dec 01, 2015 at 11:55:58AM +1100, David Gibson wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 20, 2015 at 06:24:33PM +0530, Bharata B Rao wrote:
> > From: Gu Zheng <guz.f...@cn.fujitsu.com>
> >
> > In order to deal well with the kvm vcpus (which can not be removed without
> > any
> > protection), we do not close KVM vcpu fd, just record and mark it as stopped
> > into a list, so that we can reuse it for the appending cpu hot-add request
> > if
> > possible. It is also the approach that kvm guys suggested:
> > https://www.mail-archive.com/kvm@vger.kernel.org/msg102839.html
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Chen Fan <chen.fan.f...@cn.fujitsu.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Gu Zheng <guz.f...@cn.fujitsu.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Zhu Guihua <zhugh.f...@cn.fujitsu.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Bharata B Rao <bhar...@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
> > [- Explicit CPU_REMOVE() from qemu_kvm/tcg_destroy_vcpu()
> > isn't needed as it is done from cpu_exec_exit()]
> > ---
> > cpus.c | 41 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > include/qom/cpu.h | 10 +++++++++
> > include/sysemu/kvm.h | 1 +
> > kvm-all.c | 57
> > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
> > kvm-stub.c | 5 +++++
> > 5 files changed, 113 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/cpus.c b/cpus.c
> > index 877bd70..af2b274 100644
> > --- a/cpus.c
> > +++ b/cpus.c
> > @@ -953,6 +953,21 @@ void async_run_on_cpu(CPUState *cpu, void (*func)(void
> > *data), void *data)
> > qemu_cpu_kick(cpu);
> > }
> >
> > +static void qemu_kvm_destroy_vcpu(CPUState *cpu)
> > +{
> > + if (kvm_destroy_vcpu(cpu) < 0) {
> > + error_report("kvm_destroy_vcpu failed.\n");
> > + exit(EXIT_FAILURE);
> > + }
> > +
> > + object_unparent(OBJECT(cpu));
> > +}
> > +
> > +static void qemu_tcg_destroy_vcpu(CPUState *cpu)
> > +{
> > + object_unparent(OBJECT(cpu));
> > +}
> > +
> > static void flush_queued_work(CPUState *cpu)
> > {
> > struct qemu_work_item *wi;
> > @@ -1053,6 +1068,11 @@ static void *qemu_kvm_cpu_thread_fn(void *arg)
> > }
> > }
> > qemu_kvm_wait_io_event(cpu);
> > + if (cpu->exit && !cpu_can_run(cpu)) {
> > + qemu_kvm_destroy_vcpu(cpu);
> > + qemu_mutex_unlock(&qemu_global_mutex);
>
> This looks like a change to locking semantics, and I can't see the
> connection to the described purpose of the patch.
As I replied in another thread to Alexey, this needs fixing.
>
> > + return NULL;
> > + }
> > }
> >
> > return NULL;
> > @@ -1108,6 +1128,7 @@ static void tcg_exec_all(void);
> > static void *qemu_tcg_cpu_thread_fn(void *arg)
> > {
> > CPUState *cpu = arg;
> > + CPUState *remove_cpu = NULL;
> >
> > rcu_register_thread();
> >
> > @@ -1145,6 +1166,16 @@ static void *qemu_tcg_cpu_thread_fn(void *arg)
> > }
> > }
> > qemu_tcg_wait_io_event(QTAILQ_FIRST(&cpus));
> > + CPU_FOREACH(cpu) {
> > + if (cpu->exit && !cpu_can_run(cpu)) {
> > + remove_cpu = cpu;
> > + break;
> > + }
> > + }
> > + if (remove_cpu) {
> > + qemu_tcg_destroy_vcpu(remove_cpu);
> > + remove_cpu = NULL;
> > + }
>
> Any particular reason to only cleanup one cpu per iteration?
Not sure, this is borrowed from x86 CPU hotplug patchset.
Zhu - do you know why ?
>
> Also, any particular reason this isn't folded into tcg_exec_all with
> the other cpu->exit logic?
Looks like it can be done. Will give it a try in the next iteration.
Regards,
Bharata.
