WARNING - OLD ARCHIVES

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/
   
 
 
Xen 
 
Home Products Support Community News
 
   
 

xen-devel

RE: [Xen-devel] Re: [PATCH 1/4] CPU online/offline support in Xen

To: "Shan, Haitao" <haitao.shan@xxxxxxxxx>, "Haitao Shan" <maillists.shan@xxxxxxxxx>, "Keir Fraser" <keir.fraser@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: RE: [Xen-devel] Re: [PATCH 1/4] CPU online/offline support in Xen
From: "Tian, Kevin" <kevin.tian@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 12 Sep 2008 10:22:23 +0800
Cc: xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, "Wei, Gang" <gang.wei@xxxxxxxxx>
Delivery-date: Thu, 11 Sep 2008 19:22:54 -0700
Envelope-to: www-data@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
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/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>, <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=subscribe>
List-unsubscribe: <http://lists.xensource.com/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>, <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=unsubscribe>
Sender: xen-devel-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Thread-index: AckUfmQ24tRMYhhpRsGES1HI8UlxdA==
Thread-topic: RE: [Xen-devel] Re: [PATCH 1/4] CPU online/offline support in Xen
On Friday, September 12, 2008 12:53 AM, Keir Fraser wrote:
> On 11/9/08 17:00, "Shan, Haitao" <haitao.shan@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
>> Hi, Keir,
>> 
>> Concerning the last running vcpu on the dying cpu, I have some
thought.
>> Yes, there would be a short time after the stop_machine_run when this
vcpu
>> v->processor == dying_cpu. But anyhow, we set fie __VPF_migrating
flag for
>> that vcpu and issued a schedule_softirq on the dying cpu.
>> This softirq should run immediately after stop_machine context, am I
right?
>> If so, by the time the schedule softirq is executed, this last vcpu
is
>> migrated away from this dying cpu. But saving of its context will be
delayed
>> to play_dead->sync_lazy_context. If another cpu issues the schedule
request
>> to this dying cpu
(vcpu_sleep_nosync->cpu_raise_softirq(vc->processor....))
>> during this time, the request will be serviced by the above code
sequence.
>> So it is safe in such cases. Am I missing something important? I am
not
>> quite confident on the statements, though.
> 
> I agree it looks safe.
> 
> By the way, have you considered using this hotplug functionality for
power
> management? If instead of for(;;) halt(); we instead hooked into Cx
> management and tried to get into as deep sleep as possible (possibly
even
> supporting the really deep sleeps that power off a whole socket and
mean you
> *have* to come back via real mode) then this would give a nice
> coarse-time-scale power management mechanism controllable from dom0.

Yes, that's one good suggestion and we can add deep sleep for offline
path.

> 
> I consider this might be a nice win for possibly less effort than is
being
> expended in trying to make idle residency times (and hence Cx
residency
> times) as long as possible.
> 

These two don't conflict. Cpu online/offline can't be used in small
interval due
to long latency and added overhead to whole system, but it makes sense 
when administrator realizes low cpu utilization in a relatively long
period like
in hrs. Current idle governor instead runs in fine-grained level to fit
the otherwise
cases.

Thanks,
Kevin


_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>