> >>> On 18.05.17 at 16:23, wrote:
> >> > --- a/xen/arch/x86/cpu/vpmu.c
> >> > +++ b/xen/arch/x86/cpu/vpmu.c
> >> > @@ -859,6 +859,7 @@ static int cpu_callback(
> >> > {
> >> > vpmu_save_force(vcpu);
> >> > vpmu_reset(vpmu, VPMU_CONTEXT_LOADED);
> >> > +per_cpu(last_
>>> On 18.05.17 at 16:23, wrote:
>> > --- a/xen/arch/x86/cpu/vpmu.c
>> > +++ b/xen/arch/x86/cpu/vpmu.c
>> > @@ -859,6 +859,7 @@ static int cpu_callback(
>> > {
>> > vpmu_save_force(vcpu);
>> > vpmu_reset(vpmu, VPMU_CONTEXT_LOADED);
>> > +per_cpu(last_vcpu, cpu) = NUL
On Thu, 2017-05-18 at 07:16 -0600, Jan Beulich wrote:
> > > > On 18.05.17 at 15:03, wrote:
> >
> > As I said last time, I'd rename cpu_callback() to something less
> > generic, like vpmu_cpu_callback() (or vpmu_cpuhp_callback()).
>
> The vpmu_ prefix is clearly pointless for a static function.
>
> > --- a/xen/arch/x86/cpu/vpmu.c
> > +++ b/xen/arch/x86/cpu/vpmu.c
> > @@ -859,6 +859,7 @@ static int cpu_callback(
> > {
> > vpmu_save_force(vcpu);
> > vpmu_reset(vpmu, VPMU_CONTEXT_LOADED);
> > +per_cpu(last_vcpu, cpu) = NULL;// OR: this_cpu(last_vcpu)
> >
>>> On 18.05.17 at 15:06, wrote:
On 18.05.17 at 13:51, wrote:
>> In vpmu_load(), remote call will guarded by VPMU_CONTEXT_LOADED flag
> check. As for vpmu->last_pcpu, we can't use some random online one to produce
> false.
>> What is your opinion?
>
> I continue to think that it n
>>> On 18.05.17 at 15:03, wrote:
> On 05/18/2017 05:07 AM, Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 17.05.17 at 17:57, wrote:
>>> @@ -581,9 +582,14 @@ static void vpmu_arch_destroy(struct vcpu *v)
>>>
>>> if ( vpmu->arch_vpmu_ops && vpmu->arch_vpmu_ops->arch_vpmu_destroy )
>>> {
>>> -/* Un
>>> On 18.05.17 at 13:51, wrote:
>> >>> On 17.05.17 at 17:57, wrote:
>> > @@ -581,9 +582,14 @@ static void vpmu_arch_destroy(struct vcpu *v)
>> >
>> > if ( vpmu->arch_vpmu_ops && vpmu->arch_vpmu_ops->arch_vpmu_destroy )
>> > {
>> > -/* Unload VPMU first. This will stop counters
On 05/18/2017 05:07 AM, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 17.05.17 at 17:57, wrote:
>> @@ -581,9 +582,14 @@ static void vpmu_arch_destroy(struct vcpu *v)
>>
>> if ( vpmu->arch_vpmu_ops && vpmu->arch_vpmu_ops->arch_vpmu_destroy )
>> {
>> -/* Unload VPMU first. This will stop counters *
> >>> On 17.05.17 at 17:57, wrote:
> > @@ -581,9 +582,14 @@ static void vpmu_arch_destroy(struct vcpu *v)
> >
> > if ( vpmu->arch_vpmu_ops && vpmu->arch_vpmu_ops->arch_vpmu_destroy )
> > {
> > -/* Unload VPMU first. This will stop counters */
> > -on_selected_cpus(cpumask
>>> On 17.05.17 at 17:57, wrote:
> @@ -581,9 +582,14 @@ static void vpmu_arch_destroy(struct vcpu *v)
>
> if ( vpmu->arch_vpmu_ops && vpmu->arch_vpmu_ops->arch_vpmu_destroy )
> {
> -/* Unload VPMU first. This will stop counters */
> -on_selected_cpus(cpumask_of(vcpu_vpm
Currently, Hot unplug a physical CPU with vpmu enabled may cause
system hang due to send a remote call to an offlined pCPU. This
patch add a cpu hot unplug notifer to save vpmu context before
cpu offline.
Consider one scenario, hot unplug pCPU N with vpmu enabled.
The vcpu which running on this pC
11 matches
Mail list logo
