* [PATCH v3] x86/HVM: Fix teardown ordering in hvm_vcpu_destroy()
@ 2017-01-10 14:03 Suravee Suthikulpanit
2017-01-10 14:15 ` Andrew Cooper
0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Suravee Suthikulpanit @ 2017-01-10 14:03 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: xen-devel
Cc: kevin.tian, Suravee Suthikulpanit, andrew.cooper3, jbeulich,
sherry.hurwitz, boris.ostrovsky
The order of destroy function calls in hvm_vcpu_destroy() should be
the reverse of init calls in hvm_vcpu_initialise().
Signed-off-by: Suravee Suthikulpanit <suravee.suthikulpanit@amd.com>
Reviewed-by: Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@oracle.com>
Reviewed-by: Kevin Tian <kevin.tian@intel.com>
Cc: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@suse.com>
Cc: Boris Ostrovsky <boris.ostrovsky@oracle.com>
---
Note: I separate this out from the previously sent AMD SVM AVIC patch
series since this is a standalone fix.
xen/arch/x86/hvm/hvm.c | 6 +++---
1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
diff --git a/xen/arch/x86/hvm/hvm.c b/xen/arch/x86/hvm/hvm.c
index 25dc759..d465596 100644
--- a/xen/arch/x86/hvm/hvm.c
+++ b/xen/arch/x86/hvm/hvm.c
@@ -1610,13 +1610,13 @@ void hvm_vcpu_destroy(struct vcpu *v)
free_compat_arg_xlat(v);
- tasklet_kill(&v->arch.hvm_vcpu.assert_evtchn_irq_tasklet);
- hvm_vcpu_cacheattr_destroy(v);
+ hvm_funcs.vcpu_destroy(v);
if ( is_hvm_vcpu(v) )
vlapic_destroy(v);
- hvm_funcs.vcpu_destroy(v);
+ tasklet_kill(&v->arch.hvm_vcpu.assert_evtchn_irq_tasklet);
+ hvm_vcpu_cacheattr_destroy(v);
}
void hvm_vcpu_down(struct vcpu *v)
--
1.9.1
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xen.org
https://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH v3] x86/HVM: Fix teardown ordering in hvm_vcpu_destroy()
2017-01-10 14:03 [PATCH v3] x86/HVM: Fix teardown ordering in hvm_vcpu_destroy() Suravee Suthikulpanit
@ 2017-01-10 14:15 ` Andrew Cooper
2017-01-10 14:26 ` Andrew Cooper
0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Andrew Cooper @ 2017-01-10 14:15 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Suravee Suthikulpanit, xen-devel
Cc: boris.ostrovsky, sherry.hurwitz, kevin.tian, jbeulich
On 10/01/17 14:03, Suravee Suthikulpanit wrote:
> The order of destroy function calls in hvm_vcpu_destroy() should be
> the reverse of init calls in hvm_vcpu_initialise().
>
> Signed-off-by: Suravee Suthikulpanit <suravee.suthikulpanit@amd.com>
> Reviewed-by: Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@oracle.com>
> Reviewed-by: Kevin Tian <kevin.tian@intel.com>
> Cc: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@suse.com>
> Cc: Boris Ostrovsky <boris.ostrovsky@oracle.com>
Reviewed-by: Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@citrix.com> and queued.
> ---
> Note: I separate this out from the previously sent AMD SVM AVIC patch
> series since this is a standalone fix.
>
> xen/arch/x86/hvm/hvm.c | 6 +++---
> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/xen/arch/x86/hvm/hvm.c b/xen/arch/x86/hvm/hvm.c
> index 25dc759..d465596 100644
> --- a/xen/arch/x86/hvm/hvm.c
> +++ b/xen/arch/x86/hvm/hvm.c
> @@ -1610,13 +1610,13 @@ void hvm_vcpu_destroy(struct vcpu *v)
>
> free_compat_arg_xlat(v);
>
> - tasklet_kill(&v->arch.hvm_vcpu.assert_evtchn_irq_tasklet);
> - hvm_vcpu_cacheattr_destroy(v);
> + hvm_funcs.vcpu_destroy(v);
>
> if ( is_hvm_vcpu(v) )
> vlapic_destroy(v);
>
> - hvm_funcs.vcpu_destroy(v);
> + tasklet_kill(&v->arch.hvm_vcpu.assert_evtchn_irq_tasklet);
> + hvm_vcpu_cacheattr_destroy(v);
> }
>
> void hvm_vcpu_down(struct vcpu *v)
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xen.org
https://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH v3] x86/HVM: Fix teardown ordering in hvm_vcpu_destroy()
2017-01-10 14:15 ` Andrew Cooper
@ 2017-01-10 14:26 ` Andrew Cooper
2017-01-10 14:42 ` Jan Beulich
2017-01-10 16:29 ` Suravee Suthikulpanit
0 siblings, 2 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: Andrew Cooper @ 2017-01-10 14:26 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Suravee Suthikulpanit, xen-devel
Cc: boris.ostrovsky, kevin.tian, jbeulich, sherry.hurwitz
On 10/01/17 14:15, Andrew Cooper wrote:
> On 10/01/17 14:03, Suravee Suthikulpanit wrote:
>> The order of destroy function calls in hvm_vcpu_destroy() should be
>> the reverse of init calls in hvm_vcpu_initialise().
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Suravee Suthikulpanit <suravee.suthikulpanit@amd.com>
>> Reviewed-by: Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@oracle.com>
>> Reviewed-by: Kevin Tian <kevin.tian@intel.com>
>> Cc: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@suse.com>
>> Cc: Boris Ostrovsky <boris.ostrovsky@oracle.com>
> Reviewed-by: Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@citrix.com> and queued.
Wait no.
The order in vcpu_initialise is
hvm_vcpu_cacheattr_init()
vlapic_init()
hvm_funcs.vcpu_initialise()
softirq_tasklet_init()
setup_compat_arg_xlat()
Therefore, moving the tasklet_kill() is wrong.
The overall delta should be:
andrewcoop@andrewcoop:/local/xen.git/xen$ git diff HEAD^
diff --git a/xen/arch/x86/hvm/hvm.c b/xen/arch/x86/hvm/hvm.c
index 4c0f561..9f74334 100644
--- a/xen/arch/x86/hvm/hvm.c
+++ b/xen/arch/x86/hvm/hvm.c
@@ -1626,12 +1626,12 @@ void hvm_vcpu_destroy(struct vcpu *v)
free_compat_arg_xlat(v);
tasklet_kill(&v->arch.hvm_vcpu.assert_evtchn_irq_tasklet);
- hvm_vcpu_cacheattr_destroy(v);
+ hvm_funcs.vcpu_destroy(v);
if ( is_hvm_vcpu(v) )
vlapic_destroy(v);
- hvm_funcs.vcpu_destroy(v);
+ hvm_vcpu_cacheattr_destroy(v);
}
IIRC.
If you agree, I will fold this correction in while committing.
~Andrew
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xen.org
https://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH v3] x86/HVM: Fix teardown ordering in hvm_vcpu_destroy()
2017-01-10 14:26 ` Andrew Cooper
@ 2017-01-10 14:42 ` Jan Beulich
2017-01-11 5:50 ` Tian, Kevin
2017-01-10 16:29 ` Suravee Suthikulpanit
1 sibling, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Jan Beulich @ 2017-01-10 14:42 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Suravee Suthikulpanit, Andrew Cooper
Cc: kevin.tian, xen-devel, boris.ostrovsky, sherry.hurwitz
>>> On 10.01.17 at 15:26, <andrew.cooper3@citrix.com> wrote:
> On 10/01/17 14:15, Andrew Cooper wrote:
>> On 10/01/17 14:03, Suravee Suthikulpanit wrote:
>>> The order of destroy function calls in hvm_vcpu_destroy() should be
>>> the reverse of init calls in hvm_vcpu_initialise().
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Suravee Suthikulpanit <suravee.suthikulpanit@amd.com>
>>> Reviewed-by: Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@oracle.com>
>>> Reviewed-by: Kevin Tian <kevin.tian@intel.com>
>>> Cc: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@suse.com>
>>> Cc: Boris Ostrovsky <boris.ostrovsky@oracle.com>
>> Reviewed-by: Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@citrix.com> and queued.
>
> Wait no.
Which clearly suggests that the earlier R-b-s should have been
dropped too.
> The order in vcpu_initialise is
>
> hvm_vcpu_cacheattr_init()
> vlapic_init()
> hvm_funcs.vcpu_initialise()
> softirq_tasklet_init()
> setup_compat_arg_xlat()
>
> Therefore, moving the tasklet_kill() is wrong.
>
> The overall delta should be:
>
> --- a/xen/arch/x86/hvm/hvm.c
> +++ b/xen/arch/x86/hvm/hvm.c
> @@ -1626,12 +1626,12 @@ void hvm_vcpu_destroy(struct vcpu *v)
> free_compat_arg_xlat(v);
>
> tasklet_kill(&v->arch.hvm_vcpu.assert_evtchn_irq_tasklet);
> - hvm_vcpu_cacheattr_destroy(v);
> + hvm_funcs.vcpu_destroy(v);
>
> if ( is_hvm_vcpu(v) )
> vlapic_destroy(v);
>
> - hvm_funcs.vcpu_destroy(v);
> + hvm_vcpu_cacheattr_destroy(v);
> }
>
> IIRC.
>
> If you agree, I will fold this correction in while committing.
This variant is
Reviewed-by: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@suse.com>
Jan
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xen.org
https://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH v3] x86/HVM: Fix teardown ordering in hvm_vcpu_destroy()
2017-01-10 14:26 ` Andrew Cooper
2017-01-10 14:42 ` Jan Beulich
@ 2017-01-10 16:29 ` Suravee Suthikulpanit
1 sibling, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: Suravee Suthikulpanit @ 2017-01-10 16:29 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Andrew Cooper, xen-devel
Cc: boris.ostrovsky, kevin.tian, jbeulich, sherry.hurwitz
On 1/10/17 21:26, Andrew Cooper wrote:
> On 10/01/17 14:15, Andrew Cooper wrote:
>> On 10/01/17 14:03, Suravee Suthikulpanit wrote:
>>> The order of destroy function calls in hvm_vcpu_destroy() should be
>>> the reverse of init calls in hvm_vcpu_initialise().
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Suravee Suthikulpanit <suravee.suthikulpanit@amd.com>
>>> Reviewed-by: Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@oracle.com>
>>> Reviewed-by: Kevin Tian <kevin.tian@intel.com>
>>> Cc: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@suse.com>
>>> Cc: Boris Ostrovsky <boris.ostrovsky@oracle.com>
>> Reviewed-by: Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@citrix.com> and queued.
>
> Wait no.
>
> The order in vcpu_initialise is
>
> hvm_vcpu_cacheattr_init()
> vlapic_init()
> hvm_funcs.vcpu_initialise()
> softirq_tasklet_init()
> setup_compat_arg_xlat()
>
> Therefore, moving the tasklet_kill() is wrong.
>
> The overall delta should be:
>
> andrewcoop@andrewcoop:/local/xen.git/xen$ git diff HEAD^
> diff --git a/xen/arch/x86/hvm/hvm.c b/xen/arch/x86/hvm/hvm.c
> index 4c0f561..9f74334 100644
> --- a/xen/arch/x86/hvm/hvm.c
> +++ b/xen/arch/x86/hvm/hvm.c
> @@ -1626,12 +1626,12 @@ void hvm_vcpu_destroy(struct vcpu *v)
> free_compat_arg_xlat(v);
>
> tasklet_kill(&v->arch.hvm_vcpu.assert_evtchn_irq_tasklet);
> - hvm_vcpu_cacheattr_destroy(v);
> + hvm_funcs.vcpu_destroy(v);
>
> if ( is_hvm_vcpu(v) )
> vlapic_destroy(v);
>
> - hvm_funcs.vcpu_destroy(v);
> + hvm_vcpu_cacheattr_destroy(v);
> }
>
> IIRC.
>
> If you agree, I will fold this correction in while committing.
>
> ~Andrew
>
Ah, right... sorry I missed the tasklet stuff.
Thanks,
Suravee
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xen.org
https://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH v3] x86/HVM: Fix teardown ordering in hvm_vcpu_destroy()
2017-01-10 14:42 ` Jan Beulich
@ 2017-01-11 5:50 ` Tian, Kevin
0 siblings, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: Tian, Kevin @ 2017-01-11 5:50 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Jan Beulich, Suravee Suthikulpanit, Andrew Cooper
Cc: boris.ostrovsky, xen-devel, sherry.hurwitz
> From: Jan Beulich [mailto:JBeulich@suse.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, January 10, 2017 10:42 PM
>
> >>> On 10.01.17 at 15:26, <andrew.cooper3@citrix.com> wrote:
> > On 10/01/17 14:15, Andrew Cooper wrote:
> >> On 10/01/17 14:03, Suravee Suthikulpanit wrote:
> >>> The order of destroy function calls in hvm_vcpu_destroy() should be
> >>> the reverse of init calls in hvm_vcpu_initialise().
> >>>
> >>> Signed-off-by: Suravee Suthikulpanit <suravee.suthikulpanit@amd.com>
> >>> Reviewed-by: Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@oracle.com>
> >>> Reviewed-by: Kevin Tian <kevin.tian@intel.com>
> >>> Cc: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@suse.com>
> >>> Cc: Boris Ostrovsky <boris.ostrovsky@oracle.com>
> >> Reviewed-by: Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@citrix.com> and queued.
> >
> > Wait no.
>
> Which clearly suggests that the earlier R-b-s should have been
> dropped too.
>
> > The order in vcpu_initialise is
> >
> > hvm_vcpu_cacheattr_init()
> > vlapic_init()
> > hvm_funcs.vcpu_initialise()
> > softirq_tasklet_init()
> > setup_compat_arg_xlat()
> >
> > Therefore, moving the tasklet_kill() is wrong.
> >
> > The overall delta should be:
> >
> > --- a/xen/arch/x86/hvm/hvm.c
> > +++ b/xen/arch/x86/hvm/hvm.c
> > @@ -1626,12 +1626,12 @@ void hvm_vcpu_destroy(struct vcpu *v)
> > free_compat_arg_xlat(v);
> >
> > tasklet_kill(&v->arch.hvm_vcpu.assert_evtchn_irq_tasklet);
> > - hvm_vcpu_cacheattr_destroy(v);
> > + hvm_funcs.vcpu_destroy(v);
> >
> > if ( is_hvm_vcpu(v) )
> > vlapic_destroy(v);
> >
> > - hvm_funcs.vcpu_destroy(v);
> > + hvm_vcpu_cacheattr_destroy(v);
> > }
> >
> > IIRC.
> >
> > If you agree, I will fold this correction in while committing.
>
> This variant is
> Reviewed-by: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@suse.com>
>
> Jan
here is my updated Reviewed-by: Kevin Tian <kevin.tian@intel.com>
with Andrew's change.
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xen.org
https://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2017-01-11 5:50 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2017-01-10 14:03 [PATCH v3] x86/HVM: Fix teardown ordering in hvm_vcpu_destroy() Suravee Suthikulpanit
2017-01-10 14:15 ` Andrew Cooper
2017-01-10 14:26 ` Andrew Cooper
2017-01-10 14:42 ` Jan Beulich
2017-01-11 5:50 ` Tian, Kevin
2017-01-10 16:29 ` Suravee Suthikulpanit
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.