On 15/08/18 16:18, Jan Beulich wrote:
>
>>>> --- a/xen/common/domctl.c
>>>> +++ b/xen/common/domctl.c
>>>> @@ -554,16 +554,9 @@ long do_domctl(XEN_GUEST_HANDLE_PARAM(xen_domctl_t)
>>>> u_domctl)
>>>>
>>>> ret = -EINVAL;
>>>> if ( (d == current->domain) || /* no domain_pause() */
>>>> - (max > domain_max_vcpus(d)) )
>>>> + (max != d->max_vcpus) ) /* max_vcpus set up in
>>>> createdomain */
>>>> break;
>>>>
>>>> - /* Until Xenoprof can dynamically grow its vcpu-s array... */
>>>> - if ( d->xenoprof )
>>>> - {
>>>> - ret = -EAGAIN;
>>>> - break;
>>>> - }
>>>> -
>>>> /* Needed, for example, to ensure writable p.t. state is synced.
>>>> */
>>>> domain_pause(d);
>>>>
>>>> @@ -581,38 +574,8 @@ long do_domctl(XEN_GUEST_HANDLE_PARAM(xen_domctl_t)
>>>> u_domctl)
>>>> }
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>> - /* We cannot reduce maximum VCPUs. */
>>>> - ret = -EINVAL;
>>>> - if ( (max < d->max_vcpus) && (d->vcpu[max] != NULL)
>>>> )xc_domain_max_vcpus
>>>> - goto maxvcpu_out;
>>>> -
>>>> - /*
>>>> - * For now don't allow increasing the vcpu count from a non-zero
>>>> - * value: This code and all readers of d->vcpu would otherwise
>>>> need
>>>> - * to be converted to use RCU, but at present there's no tools
>>>> side
>>>> - * code path that would issue such a request.
>>>> - */
>>>> - ret = -EBUSY;
>>>> - if ( (d->max_vcpus > 0) && (max > d->max_vcpus) )
>>>> - goto maxvcpu_out;
>>>> -
>>>> ret = -ENOMEM;
>>>> online = cpupool_domain_cpumask(d);
>>>> - if ( max > d->max_vcpus )
>>>> - {
>>>> - struct vcpu **vcpus;
>>>> -
>>>> - BUG_ON(d->vcpu != NULL);
>>>> - BUG_ON(d->max_vcpus != 0);
>>>> -
>>>> - if ( (vcpus = xzalloc_array(struct vcpu *, max)) == NULL )
>>>> - goto maxvcpu_out;
>>>> -
>>>> - /* Install vcpu array /then/ update max_vcpus. */
>>>> - d->vcpu = vcpus;
>>>> - smp_wmb();
>>>> - d->max_vcpus = max;
>>>> - }
>>>>
>>>> for ( i = 0; i < max; i++ )
>>>> {
>>> With all of this dropped, I think the domctl should be renamed. By
>>> dropping its "max" input at the same time, there would then also
>>> no longer be a need to check that the value matches what was
>>> stored during domain creation.
>> I'm still looking to eventually delete the hypercall, but we need to be
>> able to clean up all domain/vcpu allocations without calling
>> complete_domain_destroy, or rearrange the entry logic so
>> complete_domain_destroy() can be reused for a domain which isn't
>> currently in the domlist.
>>
>> Unfortunately, I think this is going to be fairly complicated, I think.
> Especially when we expect this to take some time, I think it would
> be quite helpful for the domctl to actually say what it does until
> then, rather than retaining its current (then misleading) name.
Renaming the domctl means renaming xc_domain_max_vcpus(), and the
python/ocaml stubs, the latter of which does have external users.
In this case, leaving things unchanged is the least disruptive course of
action.
~Andrew
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org
https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel
