From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Keir Fraser Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] Xen ARINC 653 Scheduler (updated to add support for CPU pools) Date: Thu, 17 Jun 2010 07:09:04 +0100 Message-ID: References: <4C19AC64.7090001@ts.fujitsu.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <4C19AC64.7090001@ts.fujitsu.com> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com To: Juergen Gross Cc: George Dunlap , Kathy Hadley , "xen-devel@lists.xensource.com" List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org On 17/06/2010 06:02, "Juergen Gross" wrote: >> Oh yes, that was the old behaviour. I took a hatchet to the >> scheduler/cpupool interfaces a few weeks ago and now we should only >> initialise the scheduler once, unless extra cpupools are manually created. > > Keir, what do you think about creating an "idle-scheduler" for the cpus not in > any cpupool? It would only schedule the idle vcpu and could be VERY minimal. > This could reduce the complexity of moving cpus from and to cpupools. > > I could try to setup a patch if you support this idea (I'm asking for your > opinion before starting this, as I'm rather busy with other tasks). What we have now is fine (which is, basically, cpupool0 and the 'no-cpupool' schedulers are one and the same thing). I don't want yet another scheduler thanks. ;-) -- Keir