>>> On 11.04.18 at 13:02, <george.dun...@citrix.com> wrote: > On 04/11/2018 11:17 AM, Dario Faggioli wrote: >> On Wed, 2018-04-11 at 12:00 +0200, Olaf Hering wrote: >>> On Wed, Apr 11, Dario Faggioli wrote: >>> >>>> Olaf, can you give it a try? It should be fine to run it on top of >>>> the >>>> last debug patch (the one that produced this crash). >>> >>> Yes, with both changes it did >4k iterations already. Thanks. >>> >> That's great to hear! :-D >> >> Now, I think I'll submit it as a proper patch in the variant that >> Juergen suggested, and that I also were thinking to use. >> >> George, any opinion? I'm going somewhere now. If I don't hear any >> pushback, I'll do that as soon as back. > > I think for simplicity / reliability of backporting, we should start > with a patch like the one you gave to Olaf (i.e., adding the "missing" > vcpu_sleep_nosync()).
Not sure - I've fallen into pitfalls like this a couple of times recently. If backports didn't move the call into vcpu_migrate(), and later we'd add a new call to that function somewhere else, a backport thereof would have basically no chance of noticing that a call to vcpu_sleep_nosync() would need to be added as well. Jan _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xenemail@example.com https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel