RE: [Xen-devel] RE: [Patch] Fix IDLE issue with sedf scheduler on IA64

["Magenheimer, Dan (HP Labs Fort Collins)" <dan.magenheimer@xxxxxx>]

> > So... an idle domain is a convenient abstraction which, it seems,
> > results in every platform inconveniently adding code to work around
> > the abstraction? ;-)
> >
> > Isn't it really the case that an idle domain/process is an 
> > anachronistic
> > concept that pre-dates "low power states" and is used by Xen mostly
> > because Xen is leveraging OS scheduler designs (that also pre-date
> > low power states)?  I recognize that that's still a perfectly
> > reasonable design choice for Xen... just trying to ensure I
> > understand.
> 
> I think that what you execute during idle time, and what state you 
> save/restore, is orthogonal to how you represent the idle 
> state to the 
> scheduler and other subsystems in the hypervisor.

Which is exactly my point... The existing paradigm for schedulers
mixes/confuses the two because scheduling the idle process/thread/domain
is a convenient way for a scheduler to report that it has nothing
runnable.

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