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 21:39:26 +0000
Cc: xen-devel <xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, xen-ppc-devel <xen-ppc-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Delivery-date: Fri, 15 Dec 2006 13:39:25 -0800
Envelope-to: www-data@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <1166215294.18449.61.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: AccgkX4FvHstq4yEEduezQAX8io7RQ==
Thread-topic: [Xen-devel] schedule() vs softirqs
User-agent: Microsoft-Entourage/11.2.5.060620
On 15/12/06 20:41, "Hollis Blanchard" <hollisb@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> It's an issue with any architecture with a large number of registers
> which aren't automatically saved by hardware (and a C ABI that makes
> some of them non-volatile).
> 
> x86 has a small number of registers. ia64 automatically saves them (from
> what I understand). So of the currently-supported architectures, yes,
> that leaves PowerPC.

I see. It sounds like returning from context_switch() is perhaps the right
thing for powerpc. That would be easier if you have per-cpu stacks (like
ia64). If not there are issues in saving register state later (and hence
delaying your call to context_saved()) as there are calls to do_softirq()
outside your asm code (well, not many, but there is one in domain.c for
example) where you won't end up executing your do_softirq() wrapper. In
general we'd like to reserve the right to include voluntary yield points,
and that won't mix well with lazy register saves and per-physical-cpu
stacks.

 -- Keir


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

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