On Thu, Feb 16, 2023 at 10:24 AM Jan Beulich <jbeul...@suse.com> wrote:
>
> On 16.02.2023 16:10, Tamas K Lengyel wrote:
> > On Thu, Feb 16, 2023 at 9:27 AM Jan Beulich <jbeul...@suse.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> On 16.02.2023 13:22, Tamas K Lengyel wrote:
> >>> On Thu, Feb 16, 2023 at 3:31 AM Jan Beulich <jbeul...@suse.com> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> On 15.02.2023 17:29, Tamas K Lengyel wrote:
> >>>>> On Wed, Feb 15, 2023 at 5:27 AM Jan Beulich <jbeul...@suse.com>
wrote:
> >>>>>> Did you consider the alternative of adjusting the ASSERT() in
> > question
> >>>>>> instead? It could reasonably become
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> #ifdef CONFIG_MEM_SHARING
> >>>>>> ASSERT(!p2m_is_hostp2m(p2m) || !remove_root ||
> >>>>> !atomic_read(&d->shr_pages));
> >>>>>> #endif
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> now, I think. That would be less intrusive a change (helpful for
> >>>>>> backporting), but there may be other (so far unnamed) benefits of
> >>> pulling
> >>>>>> ahead the shared memory teardown.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I have a hard time understanding this proposed ASSERT.
> >>>>
> >>>> It accounts for the various ways p2m_teardown() can (now) be called,
> >>>> limiting the actual check for no remaining shared pages to the last
> >>>> of all these invocations (on the host p2m with remove_root=true).
> >>>>
> >>>> Maybe
> >>>>
> >>>> /* Limit the check to the final invocation. */
> >>>> if ( p2m_is_hostp2m(p2m) && remove_root )
> >>>> ASSERT(!atomic_read(&d->shr_pages));
> >>>>
> >>>> would make this easier to follow? Another option might be to move
> >>>> the assertion to paging_final_teardown(), ahead of that specific call
> >>>> to p2m_teardown().
> >>>
> >>> AFAICT d->shr_pages would still be more then 0 when this is called
> > before
> >>> sharing is torn down so the rearrangement is necessary even if we do
> > this
> >>> assert only on the final invocation. I did a printk in place of this
> > assert
> >>> without the rearrangement and afaict it was always != 0.
> >>
> >> Was your printk() in an if() as above? paging_final_teardown() runs
really
> >> late during cleanup (when we're about to free struct domain), so I
would
> >> be somewhat concerned if by that time the count was still non-zero.
> >
> > Just replaced the assert with a printk. Without calling relinquish
shared
> > pages I don't find it odd that the count is non-zero, it only gets
> > decremented when you do call relinquish. Once the order is corrected it
is
> > zero.
>
> I may be getting you wrong, but it feels like you're still talking about
> early invocations of p2m_teardown() (from underneath domain_kill()) when
> I'm talking about the final one. No matter what ordering inside
> domain_relinquish_resources() (called from domain_kill()), the freeing
> will have happened by the time that process completes. Which is before
> the (typically last) last domain ref would be put (near the end of
> domain_kill()), and hence before the domain freeing process might be
> invoked (which is where paging_final_teardown() gets involved; see
> {,arch_}domain_destroy()).
I don't recall seeing a count with 0 before I reordered things but the
output on the serial may also have been truncated due to it printing a ton
of lines very quickly, so it could be the last one was zero just didn't
make it to my screen.
Tamas
