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] please revert c/s 17686

To: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@xxxxxxxxxx>, Gang Wei <gang.wei@xxxxxxxxx>, <xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] please revert c/s 17686
From: Keir Fraser <keir.fraser@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2008 08:51:11 +0100
Cc: Ke Yu <ke.yu@xxxxxxxxx>
Delivery-date: Fri, 13 Jun 2008 00:50:47 -0700
Envelope-to: www-data@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <485241D7.76E4.0078.0@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>
Sender: xen-devel-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Thread-index: AcjNKj8KfbpUSjkdEd2YlgAWy6hiGQ==
Thread-topic: [Xen-devel] please revert c/s 17686
User-agent: Microsoft-Entourage/11.4.0.080122


On 13/6/08 08:45, "Jan Beulich" <jbeulich@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

>> Will you keep the 10ms tick in this case? If that's acceptable it should be
>> a simple patch.
> 
> I think it would be nice it the tick was enabled only when at least one
> CPU actually is about to enter or in C3. And I'm not certain whether
> it wouldn't be possible to use a larger value than 10ms - at least in the
> case where all CPUs are in C3 (but I see that this case doesn't really
> seem to be expected anyway, given the warning handle_hpet_broadcast()
> generates when the current CPU is in the channel's mask; I'm also
> unclear about how the warning is avoided when the CPU currently in
> charge of handling the timer interrupt is to enter C3 - maybe I'm
> overlooking a place where the affinity get changed).

I missed that warning printk. It does indeed look odd.

 -- Keir



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