Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH 2/3] xen: Have schedulers revise initial placement

[Dario Faggioli <dario.faggioli@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On Fri, 2016-08-05 at 07:24 -0600, Jan Beulich wrote:
> > > > On 01.08.16 at 14:32, <dario.faggioli@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On Mon, 2016-08-01 at 04:40 -0600, Jan Beulich wrote:
> > > > > > On 15.07.16 at 20:02, <george.dunlap@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > > Signed-off-by: George Dunlap <george.dunlap@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > Should this and patch 3 be backported?
> > > 
> > Yes, I think they're good backporting candidates.
> Well, they appear to work fine on 4.7, but putting them onto 4.5
> causes an early boot crash (BUG_ON( cpu != svc->vcpu->processor )
> in __runq_insert()). Pulling in e59321d154 ("credit: remove cpu
> argument to __runq_insert()") obviously makes that crash go
> away, just to, a little later, hit the similar one close to the top
> of
> csched_load_balance().
> 
Ah, I see.. Thanks for trying and letting us know.

> I'd really like to have those backported, but I have to ask one
> of you to identify which prereq-s are needed on 4.6 and 4.5
> (I'll revert them from 4.5 right away, but I'll wait for an osstest
> flight to confirm the same issue exists on 4.6). On 4.5 I'd then
> additionally depend on you to indicate whether sedf needs
> some additional adjustment.
> 
Ok. I can't, immediately.

But if Monday is fine, I'm happy to take care of this.

Dario
-- 
<<This happens because I choose it to happen!>> (Raistlin Majere)
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Dario Faggioli, Ph.D, http://about.me/dario.faggioli
Senior Software Engineer, Citrix Systems R&D Ltd., Cambridge (UK)

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.xen.org/xen-devel