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

RE: [Xen-devel] please revert c/s 17686

To: "Keir Fraser" <keir.fraser@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "Jan Beulich" <jbeulich@xxxxxxxxxx>, <xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: RE: [Xen-devel] please revert c/s 17686
From: "Wei, Gang" <gang.wei@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2008 16:06:06 +0800
Cc: "Yu, Ke" <ke.yu@xxxxxxxxx>
Delivery-date: Fri, 13 Jun 2008 01:06:44 -0700
Envelope-to: www-data@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <C477E57F.19C2A%keir.fraser@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
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/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>, <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=subscribe>
List-unsubscribe: <http://lists.xensource.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>, <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=unsubscribe>
References: <485241D7.76E4.0078.0@xxxxxxxxxx> <C477E57F.19C2A%keir.fraser@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sender: xen-devel-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Thread-index: AcjNKj8KfbpUSjkdEd2YlgAWy6hiGQAAFuMg
Thread-topic: [Xen-devel] please revert c/s 17686
On Friday, June 13, 2008 3:51 PM, Keir Fraser wrote:
> On 13/6/08 08:45, "Jan Beulich" <jbeulich@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
>>> Will you keep the 10ms tick in this case? If that's acceptable it
>>> should be a simple patch.

We have similar considerations as Jan mentioned below. We will try
larger interval & dynamically enable/disable.

>> 
>> I think it would be nice it the tick was enabled only when at least
one
>> CPU actually is about to enter or in C3. And I'm not certain whether
>> it wouldn't be possible to use a larger value than 10ms - at least in
the
>> case where all CPUs are in C3 (but I see that this case doesn't
really
>> seem to be expected anyway, given the warning handle_hpet_broadcast()
>> generates when the current CPU is in the channel's mask; I'm also
>> unclear about how the warning is avoided when the CPU currently in
>> charge of handling the timer interrupt is to enter C3 - maybe I'm
>> overlooking a place where the affinity get changed).

For the current implementation, the hpet_broadcast_exit() will be
executed before irq enabled, so the handle_hpet_broadcast() will always
get executed after the mask was cleared. We will look into whether it is
better to move hpet_broadcast_exit() after local_irq_enable().

> 
> I missed that warning printk. It does indeed look odd.

As to this warning printk, we can simply replace it with an assert.

Jimmy

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