From: George Dunlap <george.dunlap@eu.citrix.com>
To: Keir Fraser <Keir.Fraser@eu.citrix.com>
Cc: "xen-devel@lists.xensource.com" <xen-devel@lists.xensource.com>
Subject: Re: Re: [PATCH] [RFC] Credit2 scheduler prototype
Date: Wed, 13 Jan 2010 16:43:17 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <4B4DF825.1090100@eu.citrix.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <C773A726.64B7%keir.fraser@eu.citrix.com>
Keir Fraser wrote:
> On 13/01/2010 16:05, "George Dunlap" <George.Dunlap@eu.citrix.com> wrote:
>
>
>> [NB that the current global lock will eventually be replaced with
>> per-runqueue locks.]
>>
>> In particular, one of the races without the first flag looks like this
>> (brackets indicate physical cpu):
>> [0] lock cpu0 schedule lock
>> [0] lock credit2 runqueue lock
>> [0] Take vX off runqueue; vX->processor == 1
>> [0] unlock credit2 runqueue lock
>> [1] vcpu_wake(vX) lock cpu1 schedule lock
>> [1] finds vX->running false, adds it to the runqueue
>> [1] unlock cpu1 schedule_lock
>>
>
> Actually, hang on. Doesn't this issue, and the one that your second patch
> addresses, go away if we change the schedule_lock granularity to match
> runqueue granularity? That would seem pretty sensible, and could be
> implemented with a schedule_lock(cpu) scheduler hook, returning a
> spinlock_t*, and a some easy scheduler code changes.
>
> If we do that, do you then even need separate private per-runqueue locks?
> (Just an extra thought).
>
Hmm.... can't see anything wrong with it. It would make the whole
locking discipline thing a lot simpler. It would, AFAICT, remove the
need for private per-runqueue locks, which make it a lot harder to avoid
deadlock without these sorts of strange tricks. :-)
I'll think about it, and probably give it a spin to see how it works out.
-George
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2010-01-13 16:43 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 11+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2009-12-07 17:02 [PATCH] [RFC] Credit2 scheduler prototype George Dunlap
2009-12-07 17:45 ` Keir Fraser
2009-12-08 14:48 ` George Dunlap
2009-12-08 18:20 ` Keir Fraser
2010-01-13 14:48 ` George Dunlap
2010-01-13 15:16 ` Keir Fraser
2010-01-13 16:05 ` George Dunlap
2010-01-13 16:36 ` Keir Fraser
2010-01-13 16:43 ` George Dunlap [this message]
2010-01-28 23:27 ` Dulloor
2010-01-29 0:56 ` George Dunlap
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=4B4DF825.1090100@eu.citrix.com \
--to=george.dunlap@eu.citrix.com \
--cc=Keir.Fraser@eu.citrix.com \
--cc=xen-devel@lists.xensource.com \
/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;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).