Andres Lagar-Cavilla
2012-Mar-12 15:17 UTC
[PATCH] Mem event: don''t leave zombie domains if there are wait-queued vcpus
xen/arch/x86/mm/mem_event.c | 19 ++++++++++++++++--- 1 files changed, 16 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) Vcpus in wait queues retain a domain reference. Upon domain destruction, we were not taking care of draining the wait queues. Signed-off-by: Andres Lagar-Cavilla <andres@lagarcavilla.org> diff -r 9e44b357d988 -r 06a927b592df xen/arch/x86/mm/mem_event.c --- a/xen/arch/x86/mm/mem_event.c +++ b/xen/arch/x86/mm/mem_event.c @@ -490,12 +490,25 @@ int do_mem_event_op(int op, uint32_t dom /* Clean up on domain destruction */ void mem_event_cleanup(struct domain *d) { - if ( d->mem_event->paging.ring_page ) + if ( d->mem_event->paging.ring_page ) { + /* Destroying the wait queue head means waking up all + * queued vcpus. This will drain the list, allowing + * the disable routine to complete. It will also drop + * all domain refs the wait-queued vcpus are holding. + * Finally, because this code path involves previously + * pausing the domain (domain_kill), unpausing the + * vcpus causes no harm. */ + destroy_waitqueue_head(&d->mem_event->paging.wq); (void)mem_event_disable(d, &d->mem_event->paging); - if ( d->mem_event->access.ring_page ) + } + if ( d->mem_event->access.ring_page ) { + destroy_waitqueue_head(&d->mem_event->access.wq); (void)mem_event_disable(d, &d->mem_event->access); - if ( d->mem_event->share.ring_page ) + } + if ( d->mem_event->share.ring_page ) { + destroy_waitqueue_head(&d->mem_event->share.wq); (void)mem_event_disable(d, &d->mem_event->share); + } } int mem_event_domctl(struct domain *d, xen_domctl_mem_event_op_t *mec,
Tim Deegan
2012-Mar-15 11:32 UTC
Re: [PATCH] Mem event: don''t leave zombie domains if there are wait-queued vcpus
At 11:17 -0400 on 12 Mar (1331551026), Andres Lagar-Cavilla wrote:> xen/arch/x86/mm/mem_event.c | 19 ++++++++++++++++--- > 1 files changed, 16 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) > > > Vcpus in wait queues retain a domain reference. Upon domain destruction, we > were not taking care of draining the wait queues.Applied, thanks. Tim.