[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] xen: recalculate per-cpupool credits when updating timeslice
On 29/01/16 11:46, Jan Beulich wrote: >>>> On 29.01.16 at 11:21, <JGross@xxxxxxxx> wrote: >> --- a/xen/common/sched_credit.c >> +++ b/xen/common/sched_credit.c >> @@ -1086,12 +1086,19 @@ csched_dom_cntl( >> static inline void >> __csched_set_tslice(struct csched_private *prv, unsigned timeslice) >> { >> + unsigned long flags; >> + >> + spin_lock_irqsave(&prv->lock, flags); >> + >> prv->tslice_ms = timeslice; >> prv->ticks_per_tslice = CSCHED_TICKS_PER_TSLICE; >> if ( prv->tslice_ms < prv->ticks_per_tslice ) >> prv->ticks_per_tslice = 1; >> prv->tick_period_us = prv->tslice_ms * 1000 / prv->ticks_per_tslice; >> prv->credits_per_tslice = CSCHED_CREDITS_PER_MSEC * prv->tslice_ms; >> + prv->credit = prv->credits_per_tslice * prv->ncpus; >> + >> + spin_unlock_irqrestore(&prv->lock, flags); >> } > > The added locking, which has no reason give for in the description > at all, puzzles me: I can see it being needed (and having been > missing) when called from csched_sys_cntl(), but it's not clear to > me why it would be needed when called from csched_init(). Yet > csched_sys_cntl() subsequently als updates prv->ratelimit_us, > and hence the lock would perhaps better be taken there? The locking is needed to protect against csched_alloc_pdata() and csched_free_pdata(). prv->credit could be permananently wrong without the lock, while prv->ratelimit_us can't be modified concurrently in a wrong way (it could be modified by two concurrent calls of csched_sys_cntl(), but even with locking one of both calls would be the winner, same applies to the case with no lock). OTOH I don't mind moving the lock to csched_sys_cntl(). Dario, George, any preferences? Juergen _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
|
Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our |