[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH 4/6] xen: don't free percpu areas during suspend


  • To: Jan Beulich <JBeulich@xxxxxxxx>
  • From: Juergen Gross <jgross@xxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2019 09:35:43 +0100
  • Autocrypt: addr=jgross@xxxxxxxx; prefer-encrypt=mutual; keydata= mQENBFOMcBYBCACgGjqjoGvbEouQZw/ToiBg9W98AlM2QHV+iNHsEs7kxWhKMjrioyspZKOB ycWxw3ie3j9uvg9EOB3aN4xiTv4qbnGiTr3oJhkB1gsb6ToJQZ8uxGq2kaV2KL9650I1SJve dYm8Of8Zd621lSmoKOwlNClALZNew72NjJLEzTalU1OdT7/i1TXkH09XSSI8mEQ/ouNcMvIJ NwQpd369y9bfIhWUiVXEK7MlRgUG6MvIj6Y3Am/BBLUVbDa4+gmzDC9ezlZkTZG2t14zWPvx XP3FAp2pkW0xqG7/377qptDmrk42GlSKN4z76ELnLxussxc7I2hx18NUcbP8+uty4bMxABEB AAG0H0p1ZXJnZW4gR3Jvc3MgPGpncm9zc0BzdXNlLmNvbT6JATkEEwECACMFAlOMcK8CGwMH CwkIBwMCAQYVCAIJCgsEFgIDAQIeAQIXgAAKCRCw3p3WKL8TL8eZB/9G0juS/kDY9LhEXseh mE9U+iA1VsLhgDqVbsOtZ/S14LRFHczNd/Lqkn7souCSoyWsBs3/wO+OjPvxf7m+Ef+sMtr0 G5lCWEWa9wa0IXx5HRPW/ScL+e4AVUbL7rurYMfwCzco+7TfjhMEOkC+va5gzi1KrErgNRHH kg3PhlnRY0Udyqx++UYkAsN4TQuEhNN32MvN0Np3WlBJOgKcuXpIElmMM5f1BBzJSKBkW0Jc Wy3h2Wy912vHKpPV/Xv7ZwVJ27v7KcuZcErtptDevAljxJtE7aJG6WiBzm+v9EswyWxwMCIO RoVBYuiocc51872tRGywc03xaQydB+9R7BHPuQENBFOMcBYBCADLMfoA44MwGOB9YT1V4KCy vAfd7E0BTfaAurbG+Olacciz3yd09QOmejFZC6AnoykydyvTFLAWYcSCdISMr88COmmCbJzn sHAogjexXiif6ANUUlHpjxlHCCcELmZUzomNDnEOTxZFeWMTFF9Rf2k2F0Tl4E5kmsNGgtSa aMO0rNZoOEiD/7UfPP3dfh8JCQ1VtUUsQtT1sxos8Eb/HmriJhnaTZ7Hp3jtgTVkV0ybpgFg w6WMaRkrBh17mV0z2ajjmabB7SJxcouSkR0hcpNl4oM74d2/VqoW4BxxxOD1FcNCObCELfIS auZx+XT6s+CE7Qi/c44ibBMR7hyjdzWbABEBAAGJAR8EGAECAAkFAlOMcBYCGwwACgkQsN6d 1ii/Ey9D+Af/WFr3q+bg/8v5tCknCtn92d5lyYTBNt7xgWzDZX8G6/pngzKyWfedArllp0Pn fgIXtMNV+3t8Li1Tg843EXkP7+2+CQ98MB8XvvPLYAfW8nNDV85TyVgWlldNcgdv7nn1Sq8g HwB2BHdIAkYce3hEoDQXt/mKlgEGsLpzJcnLKimtPXQQy9TxUaLBe9PInPd+Ohix0XOlY+Uk QFEx50Ki3rSDl2Zt2tnkNYKUCvTJq7jvOlaPd6d/W0tZqpyy7KVay+K4aMobDsodB3dvEAs6 ScCnh03dDAFgIq5nsB11j3KPKdVoPlfucX2c7kGNH+LUMbzqV6beIENfNexkOfxHf4kBrQQY AQgAIBYhBIUSZ3Lo9gSUpdCX97DendYovxMvBQJa3fDQAhsCAIEJELDendYovxMvdiAEGRYI AB0WIQRTLbB6QfY48x44uB6AXGG7T9hjvgUCWt3w0AAKCRCAXGG7T9hjvk2LAP99B/9FenK/ 1lfifxQmsoOrjbZtzCS6OKxPqOLHaY47BgEAqKKn36YAPpbk09d2GTVetoQJwiylx/Z9/mQI CUbQMg1pNQf9EjA1bNcMbnzJCgt0P9Q9wWCLwZa01SnQWFz8Z4HEaKldie+5bHBL5CzVBrLv 81tqX+/j95llpazzCXZW2sdNL3r8gXqrajSox7LR2rYDGdltAhQuISd2BHrbkQVEWD4hs7iV 1KQHe2uwXbKlguKPhk5ubZxqwsg/uIHw0qZDk+d0vxjTtO2JD5Jv/CeDgaBX4Emgp0NYs8IC UIyKXBtnzwiNv4cX9qKlz2Gyq9b+GdcLYZqMlIBjdCz0yJvgeb3WPNsCOanvbjelDhskx9gd 6YUUFFqgsLtrKpCNyy203a58g2WosU9k9H+LcheS37Ph2vMVTISMszW9W8gyORSgmw==
  • Cc: Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@xxxxxxxxxx>, Wei Liu <wei.liu2@xxxxxxxxxx>, xen-devel <xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Roger Pau Monne <roger.pau@xxxxxxxxxx>
  • Delivery-date: Thu, 28 Mar 2019 08:35:50 +0000
  • List-id: Xen developer discussion <xen-devel.lists.xenproject.org>
  • Openpgp: preference=signencrypt

On 28/03/2019 09:03, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>>> On 28.03.19 at 07:59, <jgross@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> On 27/03/2019 17:52, Juergen Gross wrote:
>>> On 27/03/2019 17:38, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>>>>>> On 27.03.19 at 17:18, <jgross@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>> On 27/03/2019 16:55, Andrew Cooper wrote:
>>>>>> On 18/03/2019 13:11, Juergen Gross wrote:
>>>>>>> Instead of freeing percpu areas during suspend and allocating them
>>>>>>> again when resuming keep them. Only free an area in case a cpu didn't
>>>>>>> come up again when resuming.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Juergen Gross <jgross@xxxxxxxx>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hmm - this is slightly problematic, given the dual nature of this code.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I agree that it this change is beneficial for the suspend case, but it
>>>>>> is a problem when we are parking an individual CPU for smt=0 or
>>>>>> xen-hptool reasons.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Do we have any hint we can use when taking the CPU down as to whether
>>>>>> we're expecting it to come straight back up again?
>>>>>
>>>>> Did you look into the patch? I did this by testing system_state.
>>>>
>>>> I think there's a wider problem here: enable_nonboot_cpus()
>>>> only brings back up the CPUs that were previously online.
>>>> Parked ones would be left alone, yet after resume they'd
>>>> need to be put back into parked state.
>>>
>>> I can add that handling in the respin of the series.
>>
>> Looking deeper into that mess I believe that should be a series of its
>> own. Cpu parking needs to be handled for cpu hotplug and core parking
>> (XENPF_core_parking), too.
> 
> What issue do you see for CPU hotplug? cpu_up_helper() has
> been modified by the parking series.

I was thinking of hot unplug. cpu_down() won't do the job for a parked
cpu.

> For core parking I wonder whether core_parking_helper()
> shouldn't, first of all, invoke cpu_{up,down}_helper(). This
> wouldn't be enough, though - the policy hooks need to honor
> opt_smt as well.

Right.

> As to this wanting to be a patch / series of its own - I don't
> mind, but preferably it would come ahead of your changes
> here, so that it can be backported independently and
> (sufficiently) easily (unless of course there's really no
> collision between the two).

In case there is a collision it should be fairly minimal.

I'd prefer not to block my series as it is a prerequisite for my core
scheduling series, which I believe should go in rather sooner than later
as it probably should see lot of testing before the next release.


Juergen

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel

 


Rackspace

Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our
servers 24x7x365 and backed by RackSpace's Fanatical Support®.