[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH 1/1] Xen ARINC 653 Scheduler (updated to add support for CPU pools)
On 16/06/2010 19:03, "Kathy Hadley" <Kathy.Hadley@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > That sounds reasonable to me. Fixed as of changeset 21626, in the staging tree (http://xenbits.xensource.com/staging/xen-unstable.hg). K. > Kathy > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Keir Fraser [mailto:keir.fraser@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] >> Sent: Wednesday, June 16, 2010 12:50 PM >> To: Kathy Hadley; George Dunlap >> Cc: xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Juergen Gross >> Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH 1/1] Xen ARINC 653 Scheduler (updated >> to add support for CPU pools) >> >> Oh, I see. Well, the cause is that the >> common/schedule.c:sched_adjust_global() is broken. But, what should it >> actually do, given that multiple schedulers of same or differing types >> may >> exist in a system now? Perhaps the sysctl should take a cpupool id, to >> uniquely identify the scheduler instance to be adjusted? >> >> -- Keir >> >> On 16/06/2010 17:40, "Kathy Hadley" <Kathy.Hadley@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> >> wrote: >> >>> Keir, George, et. al., >>> I definitely saw two "ops" values. When the .init function was >> called, ops >>> = 0xFF213DC0; I then used xmalloc() to allocate memory for the >> scheduler data >>> structure and set ops->sched_data equal to the address of that memory >> block >>> (similar to what is done in csched_init in sched_credit.c). When the >>> .adjust_global function was called, ops = 0xFF2112D0 and ops- >>> sched_data was >>> not equal to the address of the memory block allocated in the .init >> function >>> (it was equal to the value set when "sched_arinc653_def" was >> declared). >>> >>> Regards, >>> Kathy >>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: Keir Fraser [mailto:keir.fraser@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] >>>> Sent: Wednesday, June 16, 2010 12:32 PM >>>> To: Kathy Hadley; George Dunlap >>>> Cc: xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Juergen Gross >>>> Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH 1/1] Xen ARINC 653 Scheduler >> (updated >>>> to add support for CPU pools) >>>> >>>> On 16/06/2010 17:25, "Kathy Hadley" <Kathy.Hadley@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Keir, >>>>> I only saw the .init function called once. I downloaded xen- >>>> unstable on May >>>>> 27. Were your updates after that? >>>> >>>> My changes were done before May 27, and that ties in with you seeing >>>> .init >>>> called only once. That being the case, you should not see multiple >>>> different >>>> ops structures ('struct scheduler' instances). The only ops struct >> that >>>> should exist in the system in this case should be the one statically >>>> defined >>>> near the top of common/schedule.c. >>>> >>>> -- Keir >>>> >>>>> Thanks, >>>>> Kathy Hadley >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>>> From: Keir Fraser [mailto:keir.fraser@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] >>>>>> Sent: Wednesday, June 16, 2010 12:20 PM >>>>>> To: George Dunlap; Kathy Hadley >>>>>> Cc: xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Juergen Gross >>>>>> Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH 1/1] Xen ARINC 653 Scheduler >>>> (updated >>>>>> to add support for CPU pools) >>>>>> >>>>>> On 16/06/2010 17:14, "George Dunlap" <George.Dunlap@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>> I actually tried the xmalloc() method first. I found that when >>>> the >>>>>>>> .adjust_global function was called, the address of the "ops" >> data >>>>>> structure >>>>>>>> passed to that function was different from the address of the >>>> "ops" >>>>>> data >>>>>>>> structure when the .init function was called. I wanted to use >>>>>> .adjust_global >>>>>>>> to modify the data structure that was created when the .init >>>>>> function was >>>>>>>> called, but I could not figure out a way to get the address of >> the >>>>>> second >>>>>>>> data structure. Suggestions? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> It's been a month or two since I trawled through the cpupools >> code; >>>>>>> but I seem to recall that .init is called twice -- once for the >>>>>>> "default pool" (cpupool0), and once for an actually in-use pool. >>>>>>> (Juergen, can you correct me if I'm wrong?) Is it possible that >>>>>>> that's the difference in the pointers that you're seeing? >>>>>> >>>>>> Oh yes, that was the old behaviour. I took a hatchet to the >>>>>> scheduler/cpupool interfaces a few weeks ago and now we should >> only >>>>>> initialise the scheduler once, unless extra cpupools are manually >>>>>> created. >>>>>> The fact that Kathy is seeing two different ops structures >> probably >>>>>> indicates that her xen-unstable tree is very out of date. Which >> may >>>>>> also >>>>>> mean that the patch will not apply to current tip. >>>>>> >>>>>> -- Keir >>>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >> > _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
|
![]() |
Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our |