openstack team mailing list archive

["Serge E. Hallyn" <serge.hallyn@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Quoting Daniel P. Berrange (berrange@xxxxxxxxxx):
> On Wed, Sep 28, 2011 at 02:14:52PM -0500, Serge E. Hallyn wrote:
> > Nova (openstack) calls libvirt to create a container, then
> > periodically checks using GetInfo to see whether the container
> > is up.  If it does this too quickly, then libvirt returns an
> > error, which in libvirt.py causes an exception to be raised,
> > the same type as if the container was bad.
> 
> lxcDomainGetInfo(), holds a mutex on 'dom' for the duration of
> its execution. It checks for virDomainObjIsActive() before
> trying to use the cgroups.
> 
> lxcDomainStart(), holds the mutex on 'dom' for the duration of
> its execution, and does not return until the container is running
> and cgroups are present.

Yup, now that you mention it, I do see that.  So this shouldn't be
happening.  Can't explain it, but copious fprintf debugging still
suggests it is :)

Is it possible that vm->def->id is not being set to -1 when it is
first defined, and I'm catching it between define and start?  I
would think that would show up as much more broken, though I'm
not seeing where vm->def->id gets set to -1 during domain definition.

Well, I'll keep digging then.  Thanks for setting me straight on
the mutex!

> Similarly when we delete the cgroups, we again hold the lock
> on 'dom'.
> 
> Thus any time viDomainObjIsActive() returns true, AFAICT, we have
> guaranteed that the cgroup does in fact exist.
> 
> So can't see how control gets to the 'else' part of this
> condition if the cgroups don't exist like you describe.
> 
>     if (!virDomainObjIsActive(vm) || driver->cgroup == NULL) {
>         info->cpuTime = 0;
>         info->memory = vm->def->mem.cur_balloon;
>     } else {
>         if (virCgroupForDomain(driver->cgroup, vm->def->name, &cgroup, 0) != 0) {
>             lxcError(VIR_ERR_INTERNAL_ERROR,
>                      _("Unable to get cgroup for %s"), vm->def->name);
>             goto cleanup;
>         }
> 
> 
> What libvirt version were you seeing this behaviour with ?

0.9.2

thanks,
-serge