Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v2 22/48] xen/sched: switch schedule() from vcpus to sched_units

[Jan Beulich <jbeulich@xxxxxxxx>]

On 12.09.2019 15:44, Juergen Gross wrote:
> On 09.09.19 16:35, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> On 09.08.2019 16:58, Juergen Gross wrote:
>>> --- a/xen/common/schedule.c
>>> +++ b/xen/common/schedule.c
>>> @@ -248,6 +248,20 @@ static inline void vcpu_runstate_change(
>>>       v->runstate.state = new_state;
>>>   }
>>>   
>>> +static inline void sched_unit_runstate_change(struct sched_unit *unit,
>>> +    bool running, s_time_t new_entry_time)
>>> +{
>>> +    struct vcpu *v = unit->vcpu_list;
>>> +
>>> +    if ( running )
>>> +        vcpu_runstate_change(v, RUNSTATE_running, new_entry_time);
>>> +    else
>>> +        vcpu_runstate_change(v,
>>> +            ((v->pause_flags & VPF_blocked) ? RUNSTATE_blocked :
>>> +             (vcpu_runnable(v) ? RUNSTATE_runnable : RUNSTATE_offline)),
>>> +            new_entry_time);
>>> +}
>>
>> I find it puzzling that this gets introduced, but won't survive till
>> the end of the series. I can only guess that you can't do without the
>> separation intermediately. Making such transient state more apparent
>> from the description would be nice imo.
> 
> The functionality will stay, but it will be subsumed in patch 35. I
> don't think I should mention that in the commit message, so do you want
> me to just add it below the "---" marker?

Don't know, to be honest. Apparently odd things like this one are
making review more difficult. I don't typically resort to looking at
the final resulting code, but if even that ends up confusing, it's
certainly something where a hint somewhere would be nice.

Jan

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel