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] cpuidle causing Dom0 soft lockups

To: Jan Beulich <JBeulich@xxxxxxxxxx>, Ke Yu <ke.yu@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] cpuidle causing Dom0 soft lockups
From: Keir Fraser <keir.fraser@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 08 Feb 2010 10:11:19 +0000
Cc: Kevin Tian <kevin.tian@xxxxxxxxx>, "xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Delivery-date: Mon, 08 Feb 2010 02:11:39 -0800
Envelope-to: www-data@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <4B6FE299020000780002E337@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: Acqonk6D6t8zTb/1QNe+IaXWVskGkwACMABW
Thread-topic: [Xen-devel] cpuidle causing Dom0 soft lockups
User-agent: Microsoft-Entourage/12.23.0.091001
On 08/02/2010 09:08, "Jan Beulich" <JBeulich@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

>> - Use per-CPU vcpu list to iterate the VCPU, which is more scalable. The
>> original scheduler does not provide such kind of list, so this patch
>> implement the list in scheduler code.
> 
> I'm still not really happy with that solution. I'd rather say that e.g.
> vcpu_sleep_nosync() should set a flag in the vcpu structure indicating
> whether that one is "urgent", and the scheduler should just maintain
> a counter of "urgent" vCPU-s per pCPU. Setting the flag when a vCPU
> is put to sleep guarantees that it won't be mis-treated if it got woken
> by the time acpi_processor_idle() looks at it (or at least the window
> would be minimal - not sure if it can be eliminated completely). Plus
> not having to traverse a list is certainly better for scalability, not the
> least since you're traversing a list (necessarily) including sleeping
> vCPU-s (i.e. the ones that shouldn't affect the performance/
> responsiveness of the system).
> 
> But in the end it would certainly depend much more on Keir's view on
> it than on mine...

Your suggestion makes sense to me.

 K.



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