Re: [PATCH v3 2/3] hvc_init(): Enforce one-time initialization.
flat view
From: Amit Shah <hidden>
Date: 2011-12-05 10:55:26
Also in:
lkml, virtualization, xen-devel
On (Tue) 29 Nov 2011 [09:50:41], Miche Baker-Harvey wrote:
Good grief! Sorry for the spacing mess-up! Here's a resend with reformatting. Amit, We aren't using either QEMU or kvmtool, but we are using KVM. All
So it's a different userspace? Any chance this different userspace is causing these problems to appear? Esp. since I couldn't reproduce with qemu.
the issues we are seeing happen when we try to establish multiple virtioconsoles at boot time. The command line isn't relevant, but I can tell you the protocol that's passing between the host (kvm) and the guest (see the end of this message). We do go through the control_work_handler(), but it's not providing synchronization. Here's a trace of the control_work_handler() and handle_control_message() calls; note that there are two concurrent calls to control_work_handler().
Ah; how does that happen? control_work_handler() should just be invoked once, and if there are any more pending work items to be consumed, they should be done within the loop inside control_work_handler().
I decorated control_work_handler() with a "lifetime" marker, and passed this value to handle_control_message(), so we can see which control messages are being handled from which instance of the control_work_handler() thread. Notice that we enter control_work_handler() a second time before the handling of the second PORT_ADD message is complete. The first CONSOLE_PORT message is handled by the second control_work_handler() call, but the second is handled by the first control_work_handler() call. root@myubuntu:~# dmesg | grep MBH [3371055.808738] control_work_handler #1 [3371055.809372] + #1 handle_control_message PORT_ADD [3371055.810169] - handle_control_message PORT_ADD [3371055.810170] + #1 handle_control_message PORT_ADD [3371055.810244] control_work_handler #2 [3371055.810245] + #2 handle_control_message CONSOLE_PORT [3371055.810246] got hvc_ports_mutex [3371055.810578] - handle_control_message PORT_ADD [3371055.810579] + #1 handle_control_message CONSOLE_PORT [3371055.810580] trylock of hvc_ports_mutex failed [3371055.811352] got hvc_ports_mutex [3371055.811370] - handle_control_message CONSOLE_PORT [3371055.816609] - handle_control_message CONSOLE_PORT So, I'm guessing the bug is that there shouldn't be two instances of control_work_handler() running simultaneously?
Yep, I assumed we did that but apparently not. Do you plan to chase this one down? Amit