On 25.09.19 15:11, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 25.09.2019 14:58, Jürgen Groß wrote:
On 24.09.19 12:53, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 14.09.2019 10:52, Juergen Gross wrote:
@@ -2015,7 +2079,8 @@ static void sched_slave(void)
pcpu_schedule_unlock_irq(lock, cpu);
- sched_context_switch(vprev, sched_unit2vcpu_cpu(next, cpu), now);
+ sched_context_switch(vprev, sched_unit2vcpu_cpu(next, cpu),
+ is_idle_unit(next) && !is_idle_unit(prev), now);
}
/*
@@ -2075,7 +2140,8 @@ static void schedule(void)
pcpu_schedule_unlock_irq(lock, cpu);
vnext = sched_unit2vcpu_cpu(next, cpu);
- sched_context_switch(vprev, vnext, now);
+ sched_context_switch(vprev, vnext,
+ !is_idle_unit(prev) && is_idle_unit(next), now);
}
As a minor remark, I think between such constructs it would be good
if there was no difference, unless there's a reason to have one. Yet
if there was a reason, it surely would want to be spelled out.
I guess you mean changing the parameters of sched_context_switch()? I
can do that.
Well, yes, the two sides of the && in one of them.
Ah, okay.
--- a/xen/include/asm-x86/smp.h
+++ b/xen/include/asm-x86/smp.h
@@ -76,6 +76,9 @@ void set_nr_sockets(void);
/* Representing HT and core siblings in each socket. */
extern cpumask_t **socket_cpumask;
+#define get_cpu_current(cpu) \
+ (get_cpu_info_from_stack((unsigned long)stack_base[cpu])->current_vcpu)
I don't think this can go without a comment clarifying under what
(pretty narrow I think) conditions this is legitimate to use.
Okay. I'll add a comment like: "to be used only while no context switch
can occur on the cpu".
To be crystal clear, I'd append ", i.e. by certain scheduling code only".
Fine with me.
Juergen
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org
https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel
