Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH 13/19] xen: credit2: make the code less experimental

[Dario Faggioli <dario.faggioli@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On Thu, 2016-07-07 at 16:17 +0100, George Dunlap wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 18, 2016 at 12:12 AM, Dario Faggioli
> <dario.faggioli@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > @@ -680,8 +677,8 @@ __update_svc_load(const struct scheduler *ops,
> >          delta = now - svc->load_last_update;
> >          if ( unlikely(delta < 0) )
> >          {
> > -            d2printk("%s: Time went backwards? now %"PRI_stime"
> > llu %"PRI_stime"\n",
> > -                     __func__, now, svc->load_last_update);
> > +            printk("WARNING: %s: Time went backwards? now
> > %"PRI_stime" llu %"PRI_stime"\n",
> > +                   __func__, now, svc->load_last_update);
> Hmm, I'm afraid this makes all Jan's comments from patch 7 which I
> argued against since it was just a debugging message now valid.
> 
Yes, and on second thoughts --as I wrote myself earlier today-- I think
we actually want to keep these debug only.

I'll make things that way when resending.

> > @@ -1540,9 +1536,26 @@ static void migrate(const struct scheduler
> > *ops,
> >                      struct csched2_runqueue_data *trqd,
> >                      s_time_t now)
> >  {
> > -    if ( svc->flags & CSFLAG_scheduled )
> > +    bool_t running = svc->flags & CSFLAG_scheduled;
> > +    bool_t on_runq = __vcpu_on_runq(svc);
> What's the point of having these variables here?  AFAICS 'running' is
> used exactly once; and on_runq is only used inside the original else
> {
> } clause where it was before.
> 
Mmm... not much indeed. AFAICR, it's a remnant from a previous version
of the patch. Sorry.

> > @@ -2069,12 +2076,13 @@ csched2_schedule(
> >                  }
> >              }
> >          }
> > -        printk("%s: pcpu %d rq %d, but scurr %pv assigned to "
> > +        printk("DEBUG: %s: pcpu %d rq %d, but scurr %pv assigned
> > to "
> >                 "pcpu %d rq %d!\n",
> >                 __func__,
> >                 cpu, this_rqi,
> >                 scurr->vcpu, scurr->vcpu->processor, other_rqi);
> >      }
> > +#endif
> Do we need this path anymore? I think it was just there to help
> debugging; but all this should have been sorted out a long time ago.
> :-)
> 
Right. I'm more than up for killing it.

Thanks and Regards,
Dario
-- 
<<This happens because I choose it to happen!>> (Raistlin Majere)
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Dario Faggioli, Ph.D, http://about.me/dario.faggioli
Senior Software Engineer, Citrix Systems R&D Ltd., Cambridge (UK)

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.xen.org/xen-devel