>>
>> I'm leaning towards something in the test. I'll check if reverting
>> these changes alters the results. I don't imagine it will.
>
> The real question is which thread it fails on and at what point in
> time. My patches only changed the order of operations where threads
> enter the cpuset cgroups at a slightly different time. And the qemu main
> thread never enters the parent group, it becomes an emulator-thread.
> Maybe you can point to exactly the assertion that fails. Including a
> link to the test code. And yes if you can confirm that the patches are
> to blame that would be a good first step ;).
>
> Thanks,
> Henning
>
Update:
I have found that if I revert patch 2...
Then modify qemuInitCgroup() to modify the virCgroupNewMachine check to
also ensure "|| !priv->cgroup)
Then modify qemuSetupCgroupForEmulator() to make the virCgroupAddTask()
call like was in patch 2
Then modify patch 3 (qemuSetupCgroupForVcpu) to change the call:
if (!cpumap)
continue;
if (qemuSetupCgroupCpusetCpus(cgroup_vcpu, cpumap) < 0)
goto cleanup;
to
if (cpumap &&
qemuSetupCgroupCpusetCpus(cgroup_vcpu, cpumap) < 0)
goto cleanup;
Then retest and the test passes again.
Note that taking this route, I found that when I start the guest, I have
the following in 'tasks':
# cat /sys/fs/cgroup/memory/machine.slice/tasks
# cat /sys/fs/cgroup/memory/machine.slice/*/tasks
15007
15008
15010
15011
15013
#
Where '15007' is the virt-tests-vm1 process (eg, /proc/$pid/cgroup). If
I read the intentions you had, this follows that...
I'll post a couple of patches in a bit...
John
--
libvir-list mailing list
libvir-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list