On Mon, Apr 19, 2010 at 1:55 AM, Jiang, Yunhong <yunhong.jiang@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: Keir Fraser [mailto:keir.fraser@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
>>Sent: Saturday, April 17, 2010 2:06 AM
>>To: Jiang, Yunhong; George Dunlap; xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>Subject: [PROPOSAL] Doing work in idle-vcpu context
>>
>>George, Yunhong, and others,
>>
>>So, it seems that runing stop_machine_run(), and now
>>continue_hypercall_on_cpu(), in softirq context is a bit of a problem.
>>Because the softirq can stop the currently-running vcpu from being
>>descheduled we can end up with subtle deadlocks. For example, with s_m_r()
>>we try to rendezvous all cpus in softirq context -- we can have CPU A enter
>>the softirq interrupting VCPU X, meanwhile VCPU Y on CPU B is spinning
>>trying to pause VCPU X. Hence CPU B doesn't get into softirq, and so CPU A
>>never leaves it, and we have deadlock.
>>
>>There are various possible solutions to this, but one of the architecturally
>>neatest would be to run the s_m_r() and c_h_o_c() work in a
>>'Linux-workqueue' type of environment -- i.e., in a proper non-guest vcpu
>>context. Rather than introducing the whole kthread concept into Xen, one
>>possibility would be to schedule this work on the idle vcpus -- effectively
>>promoting idle vcpus to a more general kind of 'Xen worker vcpu' whose job
>>can include running the idle loop.
>>
>>One bit of mechanism this would require is the ability to bump the idle vcpu
>>priority up - preferably to 'max' priority forcing it to run next until we
>>return it to idle/lowest priority. George: how hard would such a mechanism
>>be to implement do you think?
>>
>>More generally: what do people think of this idea?
>
> The only concern from me is, are there any assumption in other components
> that idle
> vcpu is always for idle, and is always lowest priority?
Using the idle_domain as a worker_domain sounds a good idea. And,
bumping the credit up
doesn't seem to be too difficult. I have attached a quickly whipped
working patch (with a test driver) for this.
Not many scheduler changes. I have looked at all the other places for
idle_vcpu and
PRI_IDLE too and they look fine to me.
Keir, is this similar to what you are looking for ?
>
> --jyh
>
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Keir
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Xen-devel mailing list
> Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
>
workqueue.patch
Description: Text Data
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
|
Home