On 03/12/2015 01:45 PM, Dario Faggioli wrote: > On Wed, 2015-03-11 at 16:04 +0000, Dario Faggioli wrote: >> On Wed, 2015-03-11 at 15:01 +0000, George Dunlap wrote: > >>> It looks like domain_update_node_affinity() is already called for each >>> domain in the cpupool in cpu_disable_scheduler(). It doesn't look like >>> there should be a need to call it twice. Can we just remove the call to >>> domain_update_node_affinity() in cpupool_unassign_cpu() and not add it back? >>> >> Mmm.. true, actually. >> >> I'll send a patch to that effect. >> > Patch below, and attached. However, I think the correct thing to do > would be to just revert 93be8285 "update domU's node-affinity on the > cpupool_unassign_cpu() path", wouldn't it?
Funny you should mention that... one of the things I was thinking of suggesting was trying to move the domain_update_node_affinity() out of cpupool.c and into schedule.c, somewhere on the path that brings up a cpu or assigns it to a pool, specifically so that the lack of symmetry didn't trip anybody up. But at a quick glance I couldn't find a likely candidate. Now that I find out it already *has* tripped someone up, I think we had definitely better do something about it. :-) Let me take a look and see what seems sensible... -George _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xen.org http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
