[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v2 4/5] xen: sched_null: support for hard affinity
On Fri, 2017-04-07 at 11:08 +0100, George Dunlap wrote: > On 07/04/17 01:34, Dario Faggioli wrote: > > @@ -413,7 +431,6 @@ static void null_vcpu_insert(const struct > > scheduler *ops, struct vcpu *v) > > static void _vcpu_remove(struct null_private *prv, struct vcpu *v) > > { > > unsigned int cpu = v->processor; > > - struct domain *d = v->domain; > > struct null_vcpu *wvc; > > > > ASSERT(list_empty(&null_vcpu(v)->waitq_elem)); > > @@ -425,7 +442,7 @@ static void _vcpu_remove(struct null_private > > *prv, struct vcpu *v) > > * If yes, we assign it to cpu, in spite of v. > > */ > > wvc = list_first_entry_or_null(&prv->waitq, struct null_vcpu, > > waitq_elem); > > - if ( wvc && cpumask_test_cpu(cpu, cpupool_domain_cpumask(d)) ) > > + if ( wvc && vcpu_check_affinity(wvc->vcpu, cpu) ) > > Hmm, actually I just noticed that this only checks the first item on > the > list. If there are two vcpus on the list, and the first one doesn't > have affinity with the vcpu in question, the second one won't even be > considered. This was probably OK in the previous case, where the > only > time the test could fail is during suspend/resume, but it's not > really > OK anymore, I don't think. > Good point. I need to scan the waitqueue. Will do. > Everything else looks OK to me. > Good to hear. :-) 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 _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
|
Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our |