|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
xen-devel
RE: [Xen-devel] Re: [PATCH 1/4] CPU online/offline support in Xen
To: |
"Shan, Haitao" <haitao.shan@xxxxxxxxx>, "Haitao Shan" <maillists.shan@xxxxxxxxx>, "Keir Fraser" <keir.fraser@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
Subject: |
RE: [Xen-devel] Re: [PATCH 1/4] CPU online/offline support in Xen |
From: |
"Tian, Kevin" <kevin.tian@xxxxxxxxx> |
Date: |
Fri, 12 Sep 2008 10:22:23 +0800 |
Cc: |
xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, "Wei, Gang" <gang.wei@xxxxxxxxx> |
Delivery-date: |
Thu, 11 Sep 2008 19:22:54 -0700 |
Envelope-to: |
www-data@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |
List-help: |
<mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=help> |
List-id: |
Xen developer discussion <xen-devel.lists.xensource.com> |
List-post: |
<mailto:xen-devel@lists.xensource.com> |
List-subscribe: |
<http://lists.xensource.com/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>, <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=subscribe> |
List-unsubscribe: |
<http://lists.xensource.com/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>, <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=unsubscribe> |
Sender: |
xen-devel-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |
Thread-index: |
AckUfmQ24tRMYhhpRsGES1HI8UlxdA== |
Thread-topic: |
RE: [Xen-devel] Re: [PATCH 1/4] CPU online/offline support in Xen |
On Friday, September 12, 2008 12:53 AM, Keir Fraser wrote:
> On 11/9/08 17:00, "Shan, Haitao" <haitao.shan@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>> Hi, Keir,
>>
>> Concerning the last running vcpu on the dying cpu, I have some
thought.
>> Yes, there would be a short time after the stop_machine_run when this
vcpu
>> v->processor == dying_cpu. But anyhow, we set fie __VPF_migrating
flag for
>> that vcpu and issued a schedule_softirq on the dying cpu.
>> This softirq should run immediately after stop_machine context, am I
right?
>> If so, by the time the schedule softirq is executed, this last vcpu
is
>> migrated away from this dying cpu. But saving of its context will be
delayed
>> to play_dead->sync_lazy_context. If another cpu issues the schedule
request
>> to this dying cpu
(vcpu_sleep_nosync->cpu_raise_softirq(vc->processor....))
>> during this time, the request will be serviced by the above code
sequence.
>> So it is safe in such cases. Am I missing something important? I am
not
>> quite confident on the statements, though.
>
> I agree it looks safe.
>
> By the way, have you considered using this hotplug functionality for
power
> management? If instead of for(;;) halt(); we instead hooked into Cx
> management and tried to get into as deep sleep as possible (possibly
even
> supporting the really deep sleeps that power off a whole socket and
mean you
> *have* to come back via real mode) then this would give a nice
> coarse-time-scale power management mechanism controllable from dom0.
Yes, that's one good suggestion and we can add deep sleep for offline
path.
>
> I consider this might be a nice win for possibly less effort than is
being
> expended in trying to make idle residency times (and hence Cx
residency
> times) as long as possible.
>
These two don't conflict. Cpu online/offline can't be used in small
interval due
to long latency and added overhead to whole system, but it makes sense
when administrator realizes low cpu utilization in a relatively long
period like
in hrs. Current idle governor instead runs in fine-grained level to fit
the otherwise
cases.
Thanks,
Kevin
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
|
<Prev in Thread] |
Current Thread |
[Next in Thread>
|
- RE: [Xen-devel] Re: [PATCH 1/4] CPU online/offline support in Xen,
Tian, Kevin <=
|
|
|
|
|