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: AW: Re: AW: Re: [Xen-devel] Xen 3.4 strange behaviour as compared to

To: Carsten Schiers <carsten@xxxxxxxxxx>, keir.fraser <keir.fraser@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, xen-devel <xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "mark.langsdorf@xxxxxxx" <mark.langsdorf@xxxxxxx>
Subject: RE: AW: Re: AW: Re: [Xen-devel] Xen 3.4 strange behaviour as compared to Xen 3.3.1
From: "Tian, Kevin" <kevin.tian@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 3 Jun 2009 08:49:12 +0800
Accept-language: en-US
Acceptlanguage: en-US
Cc:
Delivery-date: Tue, 02 Jun 2009 17:51:35 -0700
Envelope-to: www-data@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <18046169.321243959506677.JavaMail.root@uhura>
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>
References: <18046169.321243959506677.JavaMail.root@uhura>
Sender: xen-devel-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Thread-index: Acnjnd398HMRLVyHShO4iFrGMfYHnQARvwuA
Thread-topic: AW: Re: AW: Re: [Xen-devel] Xen 3.4 strange behaviour as compared to Xen 3.3.1
>From: Carsten Schiers
>Sent: 2009年6月3日 0:18
>
>Sorry, I think it could also be that the CPU mask is somehow 
>modified in the
>hypercall itself. Too much code for me to realy understand. 
>
>Just a guess, but does Changeset 18898 take care of 
>cpufreq=dom0-kernel case? It's
>patching the hypercall 52 and the cpufreq_ondemand.c of Xen 
>near a modfication of
>a CPU mask variable, but no change in the cpufreq_ondemand.c 
>of the Dom0 kernel. 
>It also seems to fit into the time window, doesn't it?
>

That's really a silly typo. Could you try whether below fixes for you?

diff -r e8b74e981bfb xen/arch/x86/platform_hypercall.c
--- a/xen/arch/x86/platform_hypercall.c Tue Jun 02 18:58:09 2009 +0800
+++ b/xen/arch/x86/platform_hypercall.c Tue Jun 02 18:59:18 2009 +0800
@@ -313,7 +313,6 @@ ret_t do_platform_op(XEN_GUEST_HANDLE(xe
     {
         uint32_t cpu;
         uint64_t idletime, now = NOW();
-        struct vcpu *v;
         struct xenctl_cpumap ctlmap;
         cpumask_t cpumap;
         XEN_GUEST_HANDLE(uint8) cpumap_bitmap;
@@ -336,7 +335,7 @@ ret_t do_platform_op(XEN_GUEST_HANDLE(xe

         for_each_cpu_mask ( cpu, cpumap )
         {
-            if ( (v = idle_vcpu[cpu]) != NULL )
+            if ( !idle_vcpu[cpu] )
                 cpu_clear(cpu, cpumap);
             idletime = get_cpu_idle_time(cpu);

Thanks
Kevin
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>