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-ppc-devel

Re: [Xen-devel] schedule() vs softirqs

To: Hollis Blanchard <hollisb@xxxxxxxxxx>, Keir Fraser <keir@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] schedule() vs softirqs
From: Keir Fraser <keir@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2006 20:00:53 +0000
Cc: xen-devel <xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, xen-ppc-devel <xen-ppc-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Delivery-date: Fri, 15 Dec 2006 12:00:55 -0800
Envelope-to: www-data@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <1166209782.18449.40.camel@basalt>
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>
Sender: xen-devel-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Thread-index: Accgg7mZ9969DYx2EduorAAX8io7RQ==
Thread-topic: [Xen-devel] schedule() vs softirqs
User-agent: Microsoft-Entourage/11.2.5.060620
On 15/12/06 19:09, "Hollis Blanchard" <hollisb@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> Ah OK, I see now how x86 is doing that. I don't think that code flow
> really makes sense: why would you jump out of do_softirq() into assembly
> just to call do_softirq() again?

Well, that's the way it works out on x86. It is a bit odd, but it works and
is unlikely to affect performance. I think returning from schedule() would
have its own problems (e.g., context switch from idle domain to guest would
return to the idle loop, which we'd need explicit code to bail from, etc).

> Also, that doesn't solve the lazy register saving problem.

I assume this is a PPC-specific issue?

> However, I think I see how we can implement our desired context_switch()
> scheme in arch-specific code. The context_switch() call in schedule()
> will return, so please don't add a BUG() after that. :)

We already support this mode of operation for IA64 which always returns from
schedule().

 -- Keir


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

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