From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Ryan Harper Subject: Re: scheduler independent forced vcpu selection Date: Wed, 18 May 2005 09:55:44 -0500 Message-ID: <20050518145544.GI7305@us.ibm.com> References: <20050517204832.GH7305@us.ibm.com> <428B30BC.8070602@cl.cam.ac.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <428B30BC.8070602@cl.cam.ac.uk> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com To: Stephan Diestelhorst Cc: Ryan Harper , xen-devel@lists.xensource.com List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org * Stephan Diestelhorst [2005-05-18 09:04]: > Are you calling do_softirq directly? If not then it is quite strange, No, I just call raise_softirq(SCHEDULE_SOFTIRQ); without a subsequent do_softirq(). > that this assertion fails. > The timer assertion might be the old scheduling timer, which gets > probably reset, but not deleted beforehand... And the on runqueue > assertion suggests that you are 'stealing' the domain from the > schedulers queues without giving it a chance to notice. Could you explain what 'giving it a chance to notice' means? > I'd guess cloning do_block and appending code from __enter_scheduler > with some checks (is the 'receiver' domain runnable? if not run proper > sched.do_schedule) should give you a solid base to start from. Let me add in a check for domain_runnable and see if that helps. Thanks for the feedback. Let me know if you want me to post the patch of where I'm at right now. -- Ryan Harper Software Engineer; Linux Technology Center IBM Corp., Austin, Tx (512) 838-9253 T/L: 678-9253 ryanh@us.ibm.com