On Wed, 2019-09-11 at 16:22 +0200, Juergen Gross wrote:
> On 09.09.19 15:38, Jan Beulich wrote:
> > On 09.08.2019 16:58, Juergen Gross wrote:
> > > --- a/xen/common/schedule.c
> > > +++ b/xen/common/schedule.c
> > > @@ -368,14 +368,52 @@ static struct sched_unit
> > > *sched_alloc_unit(struct vcpu
On 09.09.19 15:38, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 09.08.2019 16:58, Juergen Gross wrote:
--- a/xen/common/schedule.c
+++ b/xen/common/schedule.c
@@ -368,14 +368,52 @@ static struct sched_unit *sched_alloc_unit(struct vcpu *v)
return NULL;
}
-int sched_init_vcpu(struct vcpu *v, unsigned int pro
On 09.08.2019 16:58, Juergen Gross wrote:
> --- a/xen/common/schedule.c
> +++ b/xen/common/schedule.c
> @@ -368,14 +368,52 @@ static struct sched_unit *sched_alloc_unit(struct vcpu
> *v)
> return NULL;
> }
>
> -int sched_init_vcpu(struct vcpu *v, unsigned int processor)
> +static unsigned
Hi Juergen,
On 09/08/2019 15:58, Juergen Gross wrote:
Today there are two distinct scenarios for vcpu_create(): either for
creation of idle-domain vcpus (vcpuid == processor) or for creation of
"normal" domain vcpus (including dom0), where the caller selects the
initial processor on a round-robi
Today there are two distinct scenarios for vcpu_create(): either for
creation of idle-domain vcpus (vcpuid == processor) or for creation of
"normal" domain vcpus (including dom0), where the caller selects the
initial processor on a round-robin scheme of the allowed processors
(allowed being based o
