All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Juergen Gross <jgross@suse.com>
To: Dario Faggioli <dario.faggioli@citrix.com>,
	xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org
Cc: George Dunlap <george.dunlap@eu.citrix.com>,
	Jan Beulich <JBeulich@suse.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 3/6] xen: sched: clarify use cases of schedule_cpu_switch()
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 2015 10:25:47 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <561F630B.5080401@suse.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20151014155416.28642.76465.stgit@Solace.station>

On 10/14/2015 05:54 PM, Dario Faggioli wrote:
> schedule_cpu_switch() is meant to be only used for moving
> pCPUs from a cpupool to no cpupool, and from there back
> to a cpupool, *not* to move them directly from one cpupool
> to another.
>
> This is something that is reflected in the way it is
> implemented, and should be kept in mind when looking at
> it. However, that is not that clear, by just the look of
> it.
>
> Make it more evident by adding commentary and ASSERT()s.
>
> Signed-off-by: Dario Faggioli <dario.faggioli@citrix.com>
> ---
> Cc: George Dunlap <george.dunlap@eu.citrix.com>
> Cc: Juergen Gross <jgross@suse.com>
> Cc: Jan Beulich <JBeulich@suse.com>
> ---
> Changes from v1:
>   * new patch, was not there in v1.
> ---
>   xen/common/schedule.c |   28 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>   1 file changed, 28 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/xen/common/schedule.c b/xen/common/schedule.c
> index 9aa209d..5ebfa33 100644
> --- a/xen/common/schedule.c
> +++ b/xen/common/schedule.c
> @@ -1486,12 +1486,40 @@ void __init scheduler_init(void)
>           BUG();
>   }
>
> +/*
> + * Move a pCPU outside of the influence of the scheduler of its current
> + * cpupool, or subject it to the scheduler of a new cpupool.
> + *
> + * For the pCPUs that are removed from their cpupool, their scheduler becomes
> + * &ops (the default scheduler, selected at boot, which also services the
> + * default cpupool). However, as these pCPUs are not really part of any pool,
> + * there won't be any scheduling event on them, not even from the default
> + * scheduler. Basically, they will just sit idle until they are explicitly
> + * added back to a cpupool.
> + */
>   int schedule_cpu_switch(unsigned int cpu, struct cpupool *c)
>   {
>       struct vcpu *idle;
>       void *ppriv, *ppriv_old, *vpriv, *vpriv_old;
>       struct scheduler *old_ops = per_cpu(scheduler, cpu);
>       struct scheduler *new_ops = (c == NULL) ? &ops : c->sched;
> +    struct cpupool *pool = per_cpu(cpupool, cpu);
> +
> +    /*
> +     * pCPUs only move from a valid cpupool to free (i.e., out of any pool),
> +     * or from free to a valid cpupool. In the former case (which happens when
> +     * c is NULL), we want the CPU to have been marked as free already, as
> +     * well as to not be valid for the source pool any longer, when we get to
> +     * here. In the latter case (which happens when c is a valid cpupool), we
> +     * want the CPU to still be marked as free, as well as to not yet be valid
> +     * for the destination pool.
> +     * This all is because we do not want any scheduling activity on the CPU
> +     * while, in here, we switch things over.

While this is correct I think you should mention that in the "adding to
a pool" case per_cpu(cpupool, cpu) already contains the new pool
pointer. So c == pool then and both are not NULL.

In fact pool is never NULL, c might be.

Maybe it would be a good idea to move setting of per_cpu(cpupool, cpu)
into schedule_cpu_switch(). Originally I didn't do that to avoid
spreading too much cpupool related actions outside of cpupool.c. But
with those ASSERT()s added hiding that action will cause more confusion
than having the modification of per_cpu(cpupool, cpu) here.

When doing the code movement the current behaviour regarding sequence
of changes must be kept, of course. So when adding the cpu to a pool
the cpupool information must be set _before_ taking the scheduler lock,
while when removing this must happen after release of the lock.

> +     */
> +    ASSERT(c != NULL || pool != NULL);
> +    ASSERT(cpumask_test_cpu(cpu, &cpupool_free_cpus));
> +    ASSERT((c == NULL && !cpumask_test_cpu(cpu, pool->cpu_valid)) ||
> +           (c != NULL && !cpumask_test_cpu(cpu, c->cpu_valid)));
>
>       if ( old_ops == new_ops )
>           return 0;


Juergen

  reply	other threads:[~2015-10-15  8:25 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 14+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2015-10-14 15:53 [PATCH v2 0/6] xen: sched: fix locking of {insert, remove}_vcpu() Dario Faggioli
2015-10-14 15:54 ` [PATCH v2 1/6] xen: sched: fix locking of remove_vcpu() in credit1 Dario Faggioli
2015-10-14 15:54 ` [PATCH v2 2/6] xen: sched: fix locking for insert_vcpu() in credit1 and RTDS Dario Faggioli
2015-10-16 16:25   ` Dario Faggioli
2015-10-14 15:54 ` [PATCH v2 3/6] xen: sched: clarify use cases of schedule_cpu_switch() Dario Faggioli
2015-10-15  8:25   ` Juergen Gross [this message]
2015-10-15  8:53     ` Dario Faggioli
2015-10-21 17:10     ` Dario Faggioli
2015-10-23 13:42       ` Juergen Gross
2015-10-23 13:53         ` Dario Faggioli
2015-10-14 15:54 ` [PATCH v2 4/6] xen: sched: better handle (not) inserting idle vCPUs in runqueues Dario Faggioli
2015-10-14 15:54 ` [PATCH v2 5/6] xen: sched: get rid of the per domain vCPU list in RTDS Dario Faggioli
2015-10-23  1:50   ` Meng Xu
2015-10-14 15:54 ` [PATCH v2 6/6] xen: sched: get rid of the per domain vCPU list in Credit2 Dario Faggioli

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=561F630B.5080401@suse.com \
    --to=jgross@suse.com \
    --cc=JBeulich@suse.com \
    --cc=dario.faggioli@citrix.com \
    --cc=george.dunlap@eu.citrix.com \
    --cc=xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.