From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Carsten Schiers <carsten@schiers.de>
Subject: AW: AW: Re: AW: Re: Xen 3.4 strange behaviour as compared
	to Xen 3.3.1
Date: Wed, 3 Jun 2009 10:31:33 +0200
Message-ID: <15103190.31244017893480.JavaMail.root@uhura>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Return-path: <xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com>
Content-Disposition: inline
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.xensource.com/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>,
	<mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:xen-devel@lists.xensource.com>
List-Help: <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.xensource.com/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>,
	<mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=subscribe>
Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com
Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com
To: "Tian, Kevin" <kevin.tian@intel.com>, "keir.fraser" <keir.fraser@eu.citrix.com>, xen-devel <xen-devel@lists.xensource.com>, mark.langsdorf@amd.com
List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org

Kevin, thanks, that fixed the issue of the ondemand govenor with cpufreq=3D=
dom0-kernel.

Keir, the other very strange issues (higher load when being the first Dom=
U started, blocking
of /etc/init.d/xendomains when a certain DomU is first), I will try to in=
vestigate further=20
and post again when I have more information, so that this theat is not ge=
tting more complex.

BR,
Carsten.


----- Originalnachricht -----
Von: "Tian, Kevin" <kevin.tian@intel.com>
Gesendet: Mit, 3.6.2009 02:49
An: Carsten Schiers <carsten@schiers.de> ; keir.fraser <keir.fraser@eu.ci=
trix.com> ; xen-devel <xen-devel@lists.xensource.com> ; mark.langsdorf@am=
d.com
Betreff: RE: AW: Re: AW: Re: [Xen-devel] Xen 3.4 strange behaviour as com=
pared	to Xen 3.3.1

>From: Carsten Schiers
>Sent: 2009=E5=B9=B46=E6=9C=883=E6=97=A5 0:18
>
>Sorry, I think it could also be that the CPU mask is somehow=20
>modified in the
>hypercall itself. Too much code for me to realy understand.=20
>
>Just a guess, but does Changeset 18898 take care of=20
>cpufreq=3Ddom0-kernel case? It's
>patching the hypercall 52 and the cpufreq_ondemand.c of Xen=20
>near a modfication of
>a CPU mask variable, but no change in the cpufreq_ondemand.c=20
>of the Dom0 kernel.=20
>It also seems to fit into the time window, doesn't it?
>

That's really a silly typo. Could you try whether below fixes for you?

diff -r e8b74e981bfb xen/arch/x86/platform_hypercall.c
--- a/xen/arch/x86/platform_hypercall.c Tue Jun 02 18:58:09 2009 +0800
+++ b/xen/arch/x86/platform_hypercall.c Tue Jun 02 18:59:18 2009 +0800
@@ -313,7 +313,6 @@ ret_t do_platform_op(XEN_GUEST_HANDLE(xe
     {
         uint32_t cpu;
         uint64_t idletime, now =3D NOW();
-        struct vcpu *v;
         struct xenctl_cpumap ctlmap;
         cpumask_t cpumap;
         XEN_GUEST_HANDLE(uint8) cpumap_bitmap;
@@ -336,7 +335,7 @@ ret_t do_platform_op(XEN_GUEST_HANDLE(xe

         for_each_cpu_mask ( cpu, cpumap )
         {
-            if ( (v =3D idle_vcpu[cpu]) !=3D NULL )
+            if ( !idle_vcpu[cpu] )
                 cpu_clear(cpu, cpumap);
             idletime =3D get_cpu_idle_time(cpu);

Thanks
Kevin