On 10/12/2012 03:52 PM, Osier Yang wrote:
> Setting pinning policy for vcpu which exceeds current vcpus number
> just makes no sense, however, it could cause various problems, E.g.
>
> <vcpu current='1'>4</vcpu>
> <cputune>
> <vcpupin vcpuid='3' cpuset='4'/>
> </cputune>
>
> % virsh start linux
> error: Failed to start domain linux
> error: cannot set CPU affinity on process 32534: No such process
>
Well pointed out.
> We must have some odd codes underlying which produces the
> "on process 32534", but the point is why we not to prevent
> earlier when parsing? Note that this is only one of the
> problem it could cause.
>
We should definitely fix it there as well. However I *think* that it is
caused just by us trying to move the processor more times, which would
be fixed by this. But that's just an idea.
> This patch is to ignore the <vcpupin> for not onlined vcpus.
>
> ---
> src/conf/domain_conf.c | 10 +++++++++-
> 1 files changed, 9 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/src/conf/domain_conf.c b/src/conf/domain_conf.c
> index 3c3d0ae..5141be6 100644
> --- a/src/conf/domain_conf.c
> +++ b/src/conf/domain_conf.c
> @@ -8806,7 +8806,15 @@ static virDomainDefPtr virDomainDefParseXML(virCapsPtr caps,
> goto error;
> }
>
> - def->cputune.vcpupin[def->cputune.nvcpupin++] = vcpupin;
> + if (vcpupin->vcpuid >= def->vcpus)
> + /* To avoid the regression when daemon loading
> + * domain confs, we can't simply error out if
> + * <vcpupin> nodes greater than current vcpus,
> + * ignoring them instead.
> + */
> + VIR_WARN("Ignore vcpupin for not onlined vcpus");
> + else
> + def->cputune.vcpupin[def->cputune.nvcpupin++] = vcpupin;
> }
> VIR_FREE(nodes);
>
>
ACK,
Martin
--
libvir-list mailing list
libvir-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list