From: Dario Faggioli <dario.faggioli@citrix.com>
To: "JBeulich@suse.com" <JBeulich@suse.com>
Cc: Andrew Cooper <Andrew.Cooper3@citrix.com>,
"xen-devel@lists.xen.org" <xen-devel@lists.xen.org>,
George Dunlap <George.Dunlap@citrix.com>,
"uma.sharma523@gmail.com" <uma.sharma523@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] sched_credit2.c: runqueue_per_core code
Date: Wed, 18 Mar 2015 08:53:57 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1426668836.2560.13.camel@citrix.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <55093DD1020000780006B1F2@mail.emea.novell.com>
[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2744 bytes --]
On Wed, 2015-03-18 at 07:56 +0000, Jan Beulich wrote:
> >>> On 17.03.15 at 19:18, <dario.faggioli@citrix.com> wrote:
> > --- a/xen/common/sched_credit2.c
> > +++ b/xen/common/sched_credit2.c
> > @@ -1936,12 +1936,8 @@ static void init_pcpu(const struct scheduler *ops, int cpu)
> > }
> >
> > /* Figure out which runqueue to put it in */
> > - rqi = 0;
> > -
> > - /* Figure out which runqueue to put it in */
> > - /* NB: cpu 0 doesn't get a STARTING callback, so we hard-code it to runqueue 0. */
> > - if ( cpu == 0 )
> > - rqi = 0;
> > + if ( system_state == SYS_STATE_boot )
>
> ... I'd suggest using <= SYS_STATE_boot or < SYS_STATE_smp_boot.
>
Ok.
> > @@ -1986,9 +1982,13 @@ static void init_pcpu(const struct scheduler *ops, int cpu)
> > static void *
> > csched2_alloc_pdata(const struct scheduler *ops, int cpu)
> > {
> > - /* Check to see if the cpu is online yet */
> > - /* Note: cpu 0 doesn't get a STARTING callback */
> > - if ( cpu == 0 || cpu_to_socket(cpu) >= 0 )
> > + /*
> > + * Actual initialization is deferred to when the pCPU will be
> > + * online, via a STARTING callback. The only exception is
> > + * the boot cpu, which does not get such a notification, and
> > + * hence needs to be taken care of here.
> > + */
> > + if ( system_state == SYS_STATE_boot )
> > init_pcpu(ops, cpu);
>
> Same here, plus the new condition at the first glance isn't matching
> the old one, but perhaps that's intentional.
>
It is intentional, and that is why we're changing it! :-) Let me try to
explain:
The idea, in both old and new code, is to call init_pcpu() either:
a) on the boot cpu, during boot
b) on non-boot cpu, *only* if they are online.
The issue is that, for assessing b), it checks whether
cpu_to_socket(cpu) returns >=0 and, if it does, it assumes the cpu is
online. That is not true, as cpu_data.phys_proc_id (which is what
cpu_to_socket() go reading) is 0 even before any onlining and topolog
identification has happened (it's a global).
Therefore, all the pcpus are initialized right away, and all are
assigned to runqueue 0, as returned by cpu_to_socket() at this stage,
which is clearly wrong.
In fact, this is the reason why, previous versions of this took the
approach of initializing things such as cpu_to_socket() returned -1
before topology identification.
In the new version, as you suggested, I'm using system_state to figure
out whether we are dealing with the boot cpu, and that's it. :-)
Hope this clarifies things... If yes, I'll make sure to put a similar
explanation in the changelog, when sending the patch officially.
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
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2015-03-18 8:53 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 25+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2015-03-13 18:11 [PATCH v2 2/2] sched_credit2.c: runqueue_per_core code Uma Sharma
2015-03-13 18:29 ` Andrew Cooper
2015-03-13 19:13 ` George Dunlap
2015-03-16 12:48 ` Jan Beulich
2015-03-16 12:51 ` George Dunlap
2015-03-16 12:56 ` Jan Beulich
2015-03-16 13:26 ` Dario Faggioli
2015-03-17 18:18 ` Dario Faggioli
2015-03-18 7:56 ` Jan Beulich
2015-03-18 8:53 ` Dario Faggioli [this message]
2015-03-18 15:26 ` George Dunlap
2015-03-18 15:59 ` Jan Beulich
2015-03-18 16:08 ` George Dunlap
2015-03-18 16:30 ` Dario Faggioli
2015-03-18 16:49 ` Dario Faggioli
2015-03-18 17:05 ` George Dunlap
2015-03-19 10:03 ` Dario Faggioli
2015-03-19 10:50 ` Jan Beulich
2015-03-19 11:23 ` Dario Faggioli
2015-03-19 11:40 ` George Dunlap
2015-03-19 12:29 ` Dario Faggioli
2015-03-19 12:35 ` George Dunlap
2015-03-19 13:00 ` Dario Faggioli
2015-03-16 12:45 ` Jan Beulich
2015-03-16 12:49 ` Jan Beulich
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=1426668836.2560.13.camel@citrix.com \
--to=dario.faggioli@citrix.com \
--cc=Andrew.Cooper3@citrix.com \
--cc=George.Dunlap@citrix.com \
--cc=JBeulich@suse.com \
--cc=uma.sharma523@gmail.com \
--cc=xen-devel@lists.xen.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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox