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: [PATCH][RESEND]RE: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] Fix softlockup issue after vc

To: "Tian, Kevin" <kevin.tian@xxxxxxxxx>, <xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [PATCH][RESEND]RE: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] Fix softlockup issue after vcpu hotplug
From: Keir Fraser <Keir.Fraser@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 02 Feb 2007 01:23:07 +0000
Delivery-date: Thu, 01 Feb 2007 17:22:48 -0800
Envelope-to: www-data@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <D470B4E54465E3469E2ABBC5AFAC390F9E11AA@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
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: AcdESFqDCWsISfq5RGeHgxcxVzRqmQACelaDAAAZiDAAAP4q2wADxf1QAAFVV3AAAMUYXAAACCkwAACFZyAAAV9OMAABEoucACBxTEAATS41lQANfeFwAACGefI=
Thread-topic: [PATCH][RESEND]RE: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] Fix softlockup issue after vcpu hotplug
User-agent: Microsoft-Entourage/11.2.5.060620
On 2/2/07 01:10, "Tian, Kevin" <kevin.tian@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> So, am I looking at wrong code? In 2.6.16:
> while (!kthread_should_stop()) {
>                 msleep_interruptible(1000);
>                 touch_softlockup_watchdog();
>         }
> 
> While in 2.6.18:
> while (!kthread_should_stop()) {
>                 set_current_state(TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE);
>                 touch_softlockup_watchdog();
>                 schedule();
>         }
> 
> I don't think same logic kept there. :-)

Fair point! I must have compared two 2.6.16 trees...

Well, that is interesting. I have no idea how SCHED_FIFO/sched_priority=99
interacts with timer wheels and/or tickless idle modes. I wonder why this
was changed at all? Perhaps a question for lkml...

 -- Keir



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