[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v1 2/3] sched_credit2.c : runqueue_per_core code
>>> On 12.03.15 at 18:07, <dario.faggioli@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Thu, 2015-03-12 at 16:21 +0000, Jan Beulich wrote: >> >>> On 12.03.15 at 15:57, <uma.sharma523@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> > @@ -1940,10 +1946,14 @@ static void init_pcpu(const struct scheduler *ops, > int cpu) >> > >> > /* Figure out which runqueue to put it in */ >> > /* NB: cpu 0 doesn't get a STARTING callback, so we hard-code it to > runqueue 0. */ >> > - if ( cpu == 0 ) >> > - rqi = 0; >> > + if ( opt_credit2_runqueue == CREDIT2_OPT_RUNQUEUE_SOCKET ) >> > + { >> > + rqi = (cpu) ? cpu_to_socket(cpu) : boot_cpu_to_socket(); >> > + } >> > else >> > - rqi = cpu_to_socket(cpu); >> > + { >> > + rqi = (cpu) ? cpu_to_core(cpu) : boot_cpu_to_core(); >> > + } >> >> Rather than extending the bad assumption of CPU 0 being the boot >> CPU (What if it gets offlined and this or another one onlined back >> as CPU 0?), can't you find a way to avoid depending on the numeric >> value of "cpu"? >> > BTW, while we're here, can we really offline CPU#0? I haven't played > much with CPU on/offlining, so sorry if I'm asking something obvious... No, we can't currently - due to similar wrong treatment elsewhere in the tree. But we shouldn't put in more road blocks. Jan _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
|
Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our |