[PATCH] credit: generalize __vcpu_has_soft_affinity()

[PATCH] credit: generalize __vcpu_has_soft_affinity()

[Jan Beulich]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 986 bytes --]

As pointed out in the discussion of the patch at
http://lists.xenproject.org/archives/html/xen-devel/2015-02/msg03256.html 
generalizing the conditions here means code elsewhere doesn't need to
take into consideration internals of how load balancing in the credit
scheduler works.

Signed-off-by: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@suse.com>

--- a/xen/common/sched_credit.c
+++ b/xen/common/sched_credit.c
@@ -292,11 +292,9 @@ __runq_remove(struct csched_vcpu *svc)
 static inline int __vcpu_has_soft_affinity(const struct vcpu *vc,
                                            const cpumask_t *mask)
 {
-    if ( cpumask_full(vc->cpu_soft_affinity)
-         || !cpumask_intersects(vc->cpu_soft_affinity, mask) )
-        return 0;
-
-    return 1;
+    return !cpumask_subset(&cpu_online_map, vc->cpu_soft_affinity) &&
+           !cpumask_subset(vc->cpu_soft_affinity, vc->cpu_hard_affinity) &&
+           cpumask_intersects(vc->cpu_soft_affinity, mask);
 }
 
 /*




[-- Attachment #2: credit-has-soft-affinity.patch --]
[-- Type: text/plain, Size: 1028 bytes --]

credit: generalize __vcpu_has_soft_affinity()

As pointed out in the discussion of the patch at
http://lists.xenproject.org/archives/html/xen-devel/2015-02/msg03256.html
generalizing the conditions here means code elsewhere doesn't need to
take into consideration internals of how load balancing in the credit
scheduler works.

Signed-off-by: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@suse.com>

--- a/xen/common/sched_credit.c
+++ b/xen/common/sched_credit.c
@@ -292,11 +292,9 @@ __runq_remove(struct csched_vcpu *svc)
 static inline int __vcpu_has_soft_affinity(const struct vcpu *vc,
                                            const cpumask_t *mask)
 {
-    if ( cpumask_full(vc->cpu_soft_affinity)
-         || !cpumask_intersects(vc->cpu_soft_affinity, mask) )
-        return 0;
-
-    return 1;
+    return !cpumask_subset(&cpu_online_map, vc->cpu_soft_affinity) &&
+           !cpumask_subset(vc->cpu_soft_affinity, vc->cpu_hard_affinity) &&
+           cpumask_intersects(vc->cpu_soft_affinity, mask);
 }
 
 /*

[-- Attachment #3: Type: text/plain, Size: 126 bytes --]

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

Re: [PATCH] credit: generalize __vcpu_has_soft_affinity()

[Dario Faggioli]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 876 bytes --]

On Wed, 2015-03-04 at 09:16 +0000, Jan Beulich wrote:
> --- a/xen/common/sched_credit.c
> +++ b/xen/common/sched_credit.c
> @@ -292,11 +292,9 @@ __runq_remove(struct csched_vcpu *svc)
>  static inline int __vcpu_has_soft_affinity(const struct vcpu *vc,
>                                             const cpumask_t *mask)
>  {
> -    if ( cpumask_full(vc->cpu_soft_affinity)
> -         || !cpumask_intersects(vc->cpu_soft_affinity, mask) )
> -        return 0;
> -
> -    return 1;
> +    return !cpumask_subset(&cpu_online_map, vc->cpu_soft_affinity) &&
>
This can use VCPU2ONLINE(vc). Or do you think the impact of one more if
(the ?: in cpupool_online_cpumask) would be too much?

> +           !cpumask_subset(vc->cpu_soft_affinity, vc->cpu_hard_affinity) &&
> +           cpumask_intersects(vc->cpu_soft_affinity, mask);
>  }
>  

Regards,
Dario

[-- Attachment #1.2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 181 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 126 bytes --]

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

Re: [PATCH] credit: generalize __vcpu_has_soft_affinity()

[Jan Beulich]

>>> On 04.03.15 at 13:08, <dario.faggioli@citrix.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 2015-03-04 at 09:16 +0000, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> --- a/xen/common/sched_credit.c
>> +++ b/xen/common/sched_credit.c
>> @@ -292,11 +292,9 @@ __runq_remove(struct csched_vcpu *svc)
>>  static inline int __vcpu_has_soft_affinity(const struct vcpu *vc,
>>                                             const cpumask_t *mask)
>>  {
>> -    if ( cpumask_full(vc->cpu_soft_affinity)
>> -         || !cpumask_intersects(vc->cpu_soft_affinity, mask) )
>> -        return 0;
>> -
>> -    return 1;
>> +    return !cpumask_subset(&cpu_online_map, vc->cpu_soft_affinity) &&
>>
> This can use VCPU2ONLINE(vc). Or do you think the impact of one more if
> (the ?: in cpupool_online_cpumask) would be too much?

No, I think that would be fine. I simply wasn't aware of the construct.
v2 soon to come.

Jan