On Fri, 2016-03-18 at 01:45 -0600, Jan Beulich wrote: > > > > > > On 18.03.16 at 05:09, <men...@cis.upenn.edu> wrote: > > Great job! However, we still have 1 mile in the 100-mile journey. > > :-D > > > > I applied the patch on staging and tried some test cases. One of > > them > > is as follows: > > > > I tried to create a cpupool and then migrate a VM to the new > > cpupool; > BTW, Meng:
(XEN) [<ffff82d08012e182>] schedule_cpu_switch+0x250/0x28a (XEN) [<ffff82d080101b49>] cpupool.c#cpupool_assign_cpu_locked+0x31/0x11f I think you mean "and then move a CPU from a cpupool to another". Or perhaps what you said is what your script does, and you weren't sure at what stage it explodes. Well, let me tell you: it's when you move a CPU between pools that have schedulers that remaps the scheduler locks (such as Credit2-->RTDS and vice versa). > > However, the system triggers the bug as below. I guess this is some > > kind of bug that are known to us, and Dario had some uncommitted > > patch to fix it, IIRC? > In the context of this patch the most relevant question is: Is this > an issue with the patch, or one that existed already before? > Exactly! And the answer is: - it's pre-existing - it's an even bigger issue than that ASSERT triggering (i.e., there are potential races even when things works) - I'm taking care of it. > After > all that's what we're in need to know whether the change can go > in. > Yep. > And skimming over the patch, it doesn't seem to alter code > related to where you see things blow up. > Indeed it does not. Thanks and Regards, Dario -- <<This happens because I choose it to happen!>> (Raistlin Majere) ----------------------------------------------------------------- Dario Faggioli, Ph.D, http://about.me/dario.faggioli Senior Software Engineer, Citrix Systems R&D Ltd., Cambridge (UK)
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
_______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xen.org http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
