Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH for 4.9] vif-common.sh: Have iptables wait for the xtables lock

On Tue, Jun 06, 2017 at 05:28:58PM +0100, Julien Grall wrote: > Hi George, > > On 05/06/17 12:03, George Dunlap wrote: > > Forgot to cc' the release manager. > > > > On Mon, Jun 5, 2017 at 11:02 AM, George Dunlap > > wrote: > > > iptables has a system-wide lock on the

Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH for 4.9] vif-common.sh: Have iptables wait for the xtables lock

Hi George, On 05/06/17 12:03, George Dunlap wrote: Forgot to cc' the release manager. On Mon, Jun 5, 2017 at 11:02 AM, George Dunlap wrote: iptables has a system-wide lock on the xtables. Strangely though, in the case of two concurrent invocations, the default is

Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH for 4.9] vif-common.sh: Have iptables wait for the xtables lock

George Dunlap writes ("[PATCH for 4.9] vif-common.sh: Have iptables wait for the xtables lock"): > iptables has a system-wide lock on the xtables. Strangely though, in > the case of two concurrent invocations, the default is for the > instance not grabbing the lock to exit out rather than

Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH for 4.9] vif-common.sh: Have iptables wait for the xtables lock

Forgot to cc' the release manager. On Mon, Jun 5, 2017 at 11:02 AM, George Dunlap wrote: > iptables has a system-wide lock on the xtables. Strangely though, in > the case of two concurrent invocations, the default is for the > instance not grabbing the lock to exit out

[Xen-devel] [PATCH for 4.9] vif-common.sh: Have iptables wait for the xtables lock

iptables has a system-wide lock on the xtables. Strangely though, in the case of two concurrent invocations, the default is for the instance not grabbing the lock to exit out rather than waiting for it. This means that when starting a large number of guests in parallel, many will fail out with