>>> On 28.05.19 at 12:33, <jgr...@suse.com> wrote: > Instead of having a full blown scheduler running for the free cpus > add a very minimalistic scheduler for that purpose only ever scheduling > the related idle vcpu. This has the big advantage of not needing any > per-cpu, per-domain or per-scheduling unit data for free cpus and in > turn simplifying moving cpus to and from cpupools a lot.
And the null scheduler is not minimalistic enough? > --- a/xen/arch/arm/smpboot.c > +++ b/xen/arch/arm/smpboot.c > @@ -350,8 +350,6 @@ void start_secondary(unsigned long boot_phys_offset, > > setup_cpu_sibling_map(cpuid); > > - scheduler_percpu_init(cpuid); > - > /* Run local notifiers */ > notify_cpu_starting(cpuid); > /* > --- a/xen/arch/x86/smpboot.c > +++ b/xen/arch/x86/smpboot.c > @@ -382,8 +382,6 @@ void start_secondary(void *unused) > > set_cpu_sibling_map(cpu); > > - scheduler_percpu_init(cpu); > - > init_percpu_time(); > > setup_secondary_APIC_clock(); Seeing you revert here what an earlier patch in the series has added, I don't suppose re-ordering could avoid this code churn? Jan _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel
