|
xen-devel
Re: [Xen-devel] CPU and scheduler init, Part 2
On 09/12/2010 14:35, "George Dunlap" <George.Dunlap@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> That could work, if you want. ATM I don't allocate anything; if I
> need to in the future, I should be able to do it allocation in
> alloc_pdata().
>
> I don't strictly need it to run on the processor that's coming up; I just
> need:
> * The function to happen after the cpu ID stuff, so that (for example)
> cpu_to_socket() returns a reasonable value
> * The function to finish before the cpu tries to run the scheduler
>
> But if you'd rather add CPU_STARTING than an interlock for CPU_ONLINE
> for technical reasons, that's fine.
CPU_ONLINE means that cpu is already in cpu_online_map. I doubt you'd want
to delay this scheduler stuff until then -- at that point other cpus can see
you and poke your runqueue. So I think a new notifier type is required, and
we may as well stick with Linux-ish semantics with CPU_STARTING.
-- Keir
> Thanks,
> -George
>
>
> On Thu, Dec 9, 2010 at 2:16 PM, Keir Fraser <keir@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>> On 09/12/2010 12:49, "George Dunlap" <dunlapg@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>>> Keir,
>>>
>>> I made a cpu status notifier for sched_credit2() to actually read an
>>> arrange the runqueue information, and found the next niggle: the
>>> callbacks are not guaranteed to finish before the cpu tried to go
>>> through the scheduler. The callback notifiers are handled on the cpu
>>> that issues the boot command (i.e., cpu 0 during boot), and there's no
>>> interlock to prevent the booted cpu from continuing until the
>>> notifiers have completed execution.
>>>
>>> Making a simple interlock (similar to the one in __cpu_up()) allows
>>> the system to boot properly. Another possibility would be to run the
>>> notifiers on the freshly booted cpu before calling into the scheduler,
>>> rather than on the cpu that issued the cpu boot sequence.
>>
>> I could bring Linux's CPU_STARTING notifier over into Xen. Runs in context
>> of new CPU before it is fully online (e.g., before interrupts are enabled).
>> So you couldn't do any allocations there, or anything else that can fail.
>> This might require some juggling to pre-allocate memory (e.g., for
>> possibly-required new runqueue) on CPU_UP_PREPARE/alloc_pdata, and
>> potentially free that memory if unused on CPU_ONLINE. Or not, if actually
>> you require no dynamic memory allocation.
>>
>> This might be the best solution overall I think? I can knock up a patch for
>> CPU_STARTING if that sounds good.
>>
>> -- Keir
>>
>>> Thoughts?
>>>
>>> -George
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Xen-devel mailing list
>>> Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>> http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Xen-devel mailing list
>> Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
>>
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
|
|
|
Home