Re: [PATCH] virsh: report error if vcpu number exceed the guest maxvcpu number

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 




On 07/02/2015 04:29 AM, John Ferlan wrote:

On 06/28/2015 10:10 PM, Luyao Huang wrote:
If usr pass a vcpu which exceed guest maxvcpu number, virsh client
will only output an header like this:

  # virsh vcpupin test3 1000
  VCPU: CPU Affinity
  ----------------------------------

After this patch:

  # virsh vcpupin test3 1000
  error: vcpu 1000 is out of range of cpu count 2

Signed-off-by: Luyao Huang <lhuang@xxxxxxxxxx>
---
  tools/virsh-domain.c | 5 +++++
  1 file changed, 5 insertions(+)

Seemed odd that this check wasn't there - so I did some digging...

Pavel's commit id '81dd81e' removed a check that seems to be what is
desired in this path (or was there before his change):

     if (vcpu >= info.nrVirtCpu) {
         vshError(ctl, "%s", _("vcpupin: vCPU index out of range."));
         goto cleanup;
         return false;
     }

As part of this commit, you'll note there was a test change in
"tests/vcpupin":

  # An out-of-range vCPU number deserves a diagnostic, too.
  $abs_top_builddir/tools/virsh --connect test:///default vcpupin test
100 0,1 > out 2>&1
  test $? = 1 || fail=1
  cat <<\EOF > exp || fail=1
-error: vcpupin: vCPU index out of range.
+error: invalid argument: requested vcpu is higher than allocated vcpus


Searching on their error message lands one in test_driver.c/
testDomainPinVcpu().  So something specific for a set path, but the path
you're hitting is the get path.

Yes, i noticed this and checked if need introduce a test or change the old test, but
i found test driver not support get vcpupin.


FWIW: If a similar test was run on my system I get:
# virsh vcpupin $dom 1000 0,1
error: invalid argument: vcpu 1000 is out of range of live cpu count 2

#


So, if I understand everything that was done - then while your change is
mostly correct, I think you could perhaps message the error similar to
the vshCPUCountCollect failure (see the attached patch)

I saw the attached patch, but there is some problem about check the flag (actually
i had a try with check flags and output a better error before).

If check flags like vshCPUCountCollect failure, there will be a problem when do not pass flag or just pass current flag to vcpupin, we will get error like this (pass a too big vcpu
number):

# virsh list;virsh vcpupin rhel7.0 1000 --current
 Id    Name                           State
----------------------------------------------------
 3     rhel7.0                        running

error: vcpu 1000 is out of range of persistent cpu count 4

In this case, we output "persistent" instead of "live", this is because vshCPUCountCollect() cannot return certain flags (although there is a description say "Returns the count of vCPUs for a domain and certain flags"). So we need more check for current flags, maybe like this :

diff --git a/tools/virsh-domain.c b/tools/virsh-domain.c
index 27d62e9..334fd3a 100644
--- a/tools/virsh-domain.c
+++ b/tools/virsh-domain.c
@@ -6497,6 +6497,19 @@ cmdVcpuPin(vshControl *ctl, const vshCmd *cmd)
             goto cleanup;
         }

+        if (got_vcpu && vcpu >= ncpus) {
+            if (flags & VIR_DOMAIN_AFFECT_LIVE ||
+ (flags & VIR_DOMAIN_AFFECT_CURRENT && virDomainIsActive(dom) == 1))
+                vshError(ctl,
+                         _("vcpu %d is out of range of live cpu count %d"),
+                         vcpu, ncpus);
+            else
+                vshError(ctl,
+ _("vcpu %d is out of range of persistent cpu count %d"),
+                         vcpu, ncpus);
+            goto cleanup;
+        }
+
         cpumaplen = VIR_CPU_MAPLEN(maxcpu);
         cpumap = vshMalloc(ctl, ncpus * cpumaplen);
         if ((ncpus = virDomainGetVcpuPinInfo(dom, ncpus, cpumap,


Before I make that change for you - hopefully Pavel can take a look as
well to be sure I haven't missed something.

With any luck we this could be addressed before the 1.2.17 release, but
if not since it's been a regression since 1.2.13 and no one's noticed,
then another release probably won't hurt.

Right, if we can fix it in 1.2.17, it will be better :)

Thanks a lot for your help and review.

John


Luyao

--
libvir-list mailing list
libvir-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list



[Index of Archives]     [Virt Tools]     [Libvirt Users]     [Lib OS Info]     [Fedora Users]     [Fedora Desktop]     [Fedora SELinux]     [Big List of Linux Books]     [Yosemite News]     [KDE Users]     [Fedora Tools]