WARNING - OLD ARCHIVES

This is an archived copy of the Xen.org mailing list, which we have preserved to ensure that existing links to archives are not broken. The live archive, which contains the latest emails, can be found at http://lists.xen.org/
   
 
 
Xen 
 
Home Products Support Community News
 
   
 

xen-devel

[Xen-devel] Re: bad interaction between boosted idle vcpus and csched's

To: Jan Beulich <JBeulich@xxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [Xen-devel] Re: bad interaction between boosted idle vcpus and csched's tickling?
From: Keir Fraser <keir.fraser@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 7 May 2010 14:02:44 +0100
Cc: "xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Delivery-date: Fri, 07 May 2010 06:03:51 -0700
Envelope-to: www-data@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <4BE4255B0200007800001C89@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
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: Acrt4b6xjPTNWiDNRRONOH2DBniFkgAA9aCi
Thread-topic: bad interaction between boosted idle vcpus and csched's tickling?
User-agent: Microsoft-Entourage/12.24.0.100205
On 07/05/2010 13:36, "Jan Beulich" <JBeulich@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> Keir,
> 
> isn't there a problem after the change to handle tasklets in idle vcpus
> in that {default,acpi_processor}_idle() will put the vcpu to sleep with
> boosted priority still in place, hence preventing it from being tickled
> and/or needlessly tickling other CPUs?

See the comment above tasklet_list definition in tasklet.c: we always run
through the scheduler when tasklets are added/removed. That is explicitly to
get the idle thread's priority set correctly.

I think this could be handled better though, and also in the current
approach I actually still probably don't have enough raise_softirq() calls.
:-) I will take another look and see if I can make things more obvious and
robust.

 Thanks,
 Keir

> Jan
> 



_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>