On Thu, 2015-03-19 at 11:40 +0000, George Dunlap wrote: > On 03/19/2015 10:50 AM, Jan Beulich wrote: > >>>> On 19.03.15 at 11:03, <dario.faggi...@citrix.com> wrote:
> >> Nevertheless I see the value of doing so, and hence I think what we > >> could do would be to introduce a new hook in the scheduler interface, > >> called .init_pdata or .init_pcpu, and, in sched_*.c, split the > >> allocation and the initialization parts. The former will be handled > >> during CPU_UP_PREPARE, when allocation is possible, the latter during > >> CPU_STARTING, when we have more info available to perform actual > >> initializations. > > > > Another alternative would be a new CPU_ALIVE (name subject to > > change) notification after interrupts got enabled. That would (as > > a follow-up cleanup) also allow the MTRR and microcode setup on > > the CPU to no longer need explicit calls (which look reversed > > anyway - surely we should update microcode before fiddling with > > MTRRs). > > local_irq_enable() happens after setting the cpu as online in > cpu_online_map; not having the scheduler ready to actually schedule on > it at that time seems like it's asking for trouble. > Right. > /me pokes around and thinks some more... > So, if I can ask, how about my idea of splitting alloc_ and init_ parts of pCPU initialization ? :-) 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
