This is an archived copy of the Xen.org mailing list, which we have preserved to ensure that existing links to archives are not broken. The live archive, which contains the latest emails, can be found at http://lists.xen.org/
Home Products Support Community News


Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] x86 linux: prevent halted VCPUs from eating up C

To: "Jan Beulich" <jbeulich@xxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] x86 linux: prevent halted VCPUs from eating up CPU bandwidth
From: Keir Fraser <Keir.Fraser@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 30 May 2006 09:49:12 +0100
Cc: xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Delivery-date: Tue, 30 May 2006 01:49:26 -0700
Envelope-to: www-data@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <447C1A39.76E4.0078.0@xxxxxxxxxx>
List-help: <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=help>
List-id: Xen developer discussion <xen-devel.lists.xensource.com>
List-post: <mailto:xen-devel@lists.xensource.com>
List-subscribe: <http://lists.xensource.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>, <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=subscribe>
List-unsubscribe: <http://lists.xensource.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>, <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=unsubscribe>
References: <447B22B4.76E4.0078.0@xxxxxxxxxx> <73269221f5db8876639054dfebfa5617@xxxxxxxxxxxx> <447C1A39.76E4.0078.0@xxxxxxxxxx>
Sender: xen-devel-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

On 30 May 2006, at 09:11, Jan Beulich wrote:

Indeed, this was the behavior I intended, but somehow I failed to find the VCPUOP_down operation that I was looking
for. Here's an updated patch.

Given that you went for the more complicated definition of halt() that calls block when event delivery is enabled, is it actually necessary to not compile the halt-checking routine? If event delivery is enabled in that function, shouldn't we return from each invocation of halt() on (at least) each timer interrupt? If not, I wonder why our behaviour there differs from native?

 -- Keir

Xen-devel mailing list