On Thu, 2015-03-12 at 16:21 +0000, Jan Beulich wrote: > >>> On 12.03.15 at 15:57, <uma.sharma...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > @@ -1940,10 +1946,14 @@ static void init_pcpu(const struct scheduler *ops,
> > int cpu)
> >
> > /* Figure out which runqueue to put it in */
> > /* NB: cpu 0 doesn't get a STARTING callback, so we hard-code it to
> > runqueue 0. */
> > - if ( cpu == 0 )
> > - rqi = 0;
> > + if ( opt_credit2_runqueue == CREDIT2_OPT_RUNQUEUE_SOCKET )
> > + {
> > + rqi = (cpu) ? cpu_to_socket(cpu) : boot_cpu_to_socket();
> > + }
> > else
> > - rqi = cpu_to_socket(cpu);
> > + {
> > + rqi = (cpu) ? cpu_to_core(cpu) : boot_cpu_to_core();
> > + }
>
> Rather than extending the bad assumption of CPU 0 being the boot
> CPU (What if it gets offlined and this or another one onlined back
> as CPU 0?), can't you find a way to avoid depending on the numeric
> value of "cpu"?
>
This is on me, i.e., I'm working on this and, when done, I'll include
Uma's patches in my series, adapting this bit (she agreed already to
this plan).
Regards,
Dario
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
_______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xen.org http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
