On Thu, Mar 05, 2015 at 04:17:59PM -0500, Boris Ostrovsky wrote:
> On 03/04/2015 10:25 AM, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> >On Wed, Mar 04, 2015 at 09:55:11AM -0500, Boris Ostrovsky wrote:
>
> >>The simple solution is to stop calling native_cpu_die() above but
> >>I'd like to use common code in
On 03/04/2015 10:25 AM, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
On Wed, Mar 04, 2015 at 09:55:11AM -0500, Boris Ostrovsky wrote:
The simple solution is to stop calling native_cpu_die() above but
I'd like to use common code in native_cpu_die(). I'll see if I can
carve it out without too much damage to x86.
On 03/04/2015 10:25 AM, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
On Wed, Mar 04, 2015 at 09:55:11AM -0500, Boris Ostrovsky wrote:
The simple solution is to stop calling native_cpu_die() above but
I'd like to use common code in native_cpu_die(). I'll see if I can
carve it out without too much damage to x86.
On Thu, Mar 05, 2015 at 04:17:59PM -0500, Boris Ostrovsky wrote:
On 03/04/2015 10:25 AM, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
On Wed, Mar 04, 2015 at 09:55:11AM -0500, Boris Ostrovsky wrote:
The simple solution is to stop calling native_cpu_die() above but
I'd like to use common code in native_cpu_die().
On 03/04/2015 10:45 AM, David Vrabel wrote:
On 04/03/15 14:55, Boris Ostrovsky wrote:
In the meantime, it turned out that HVM guests are broken by this patch
(with our without changes that we've been discussing), because HVM CPUs
die with
static void xen_hvm_cpu_die(unsigned int cpu)
{
On 04/03/15 14:55, Boris Ostrovsky wrote:
>
> In the meantime, it turned out that HVM guests are broken by this patch
> (with our without changes that we've been discussing), because HVM CPUs
> die with
>
> static void xen_hvm_cpu_die(unsigned int cpu)
> {
> xen_cpu_die(cpu);
>
On Wed, Mar 04, 2015 at 09:55:11AM -0500, Boris Ostrovsky wrote:
> On 03/04/2015 09:43 AM, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> >On Tue, Mar 03, 2015 at 02:31:51PM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> >>On Tue, Mar 03, 2015 at 05:06:50PM -0500, Boris Ostrovsky wrote:
> >>>On 03/03/2015 04:26 PM, Paul E. McKenney
On 03/04/2015 09:43 AM, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
On Tue, Mar 03, 2015 at 02:31:51PM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
On Tue, Mar 03, 2015 at 05:06:50PM -0500, Boris Ostrovsky wrote:
On 03/03/2015 04:26 PM, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
On Tue, Mar 03, 2015 at 03:13:07PM -0500, Boris Ostrovsky wrote:
On Tue, Mar 03, 2015 at 02:31:51PM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 03, 2015 at 05:06:50PM -0500, Boris Ostrovsky wrote:
> > On 03/03/2015 04:26 PM, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > >On Tue, Mar 03, 2015 at 03:13:07PM -0500, Boris Ostrovsky wrote:
> > >>On 03/03/2015 02:42 PM, Paul E.
On 04/03/15 14:55, Boris Ostrovsky wrote:
In the meantime, it turned out that HVM guests are broken by this patch
(with our without changes that we've been discussing), because HVM CPUs
die with
static void xen_hvm_cpu_die(unsigned int cpu)
{
xen_cpu_die(cpu);
On Wed, Mar 04, 2015 at 09:55:11AM -0500, Boris Ostrovsky wrote:
On 03/04/2015 09:43 AM, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
On Tue, Mar 03, 2015 at 02:31:51PM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
On Tue, Mar 03, 2015 at 05:06:50PM -0500, Boris Ostrovsky wrote:
On 03/03/2015 04:26 PM, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
On 03/04/2015 10:45 AM, David Vrabel wrote:
On 04/03/15 14:55, Boris Ostrovsky wrote:
In the meantime, it turned out that HVM guests are broken by this patch
(with our without changes that we've been discussing), because HVM CPUs
die with
static void xen_hvm_cpu_die(unsigned int cpu)
{
On Tue, Mar 03, 2015 at 02:31:51PM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
On Tue, Mar 03, 2015 at 05:06:50PM -0500, Boris Ostrovsky wrote:
On 03/03/2015 04:26 PM, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
On Tue, Mar 03, 2015 at 03:13:07PM -0500, Boris Ostrovsky wrote:
On 03/03/2015 02:42 PM, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
On 03/04/2015 09:43 AM, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
On Tue, Mar 03, 2015 at 02:31:51PM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
On Tue, Mar 03, 2015 at 05:06:50PM -0500, Boris Ostrovsky wrote:
On 03/03/2015 04:26 PM, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
On Tue, Mar 03, 2015 at 03:13:07PM -0500, Boris Ostrovsky wrote:
On Tue, Mar 03, 2015 at 05:06:50PM -0500, Boris Ostrovsky wrote:
> On 03/03/2015 04:26 PM, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> >On Tue, Mar 03, 2015 at 03:13:07PM -0500, Boris Ostrovsky wrote:
> >>On 03/03/2015 02:42 PM, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> >>>On Tue, Mar 03, 2015 at 02:17:24PM -0500, Boris Ostrovsky
On 03/03/2015 04:26 PM, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
On Tue, Mar 03, 2015 at 03:13:07PM -0500, Boris Ostrovsky wrote:
On 03/03/2015 02:42 PM, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
On Tue, Mar 03, 2015 at 02:17:24PM -0500, Boris Ostrovsky wrote:
On 03/03/2015 12:42 PM, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
}
@@ -511,7
On Tue, Mar 03, 2015 at 03:13:07PM -0500, Boris Ostrovsky wrote:
> On 03/03/2015 02:42 PM, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> >On Tue, Mar 03, 2015 at 02:17:24PM -0500, Boris Ostrovsky wrote:
> >>On 03/03/2015 12:42 PM, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> >>> }
> >>>@@ -511,7 +508,8 @@ static void
On 03/03/2015 02:42 PM, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
On Tue, Mar 03, 2015 at 02:17:24PM -0500, Boris Ostrovsky wrote:
On 03/03/2015 12:42 PM, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
}
@@ -511,7 +508,8 @@ static void xen_cpu_die(unsigned int cpu)
schedule_timeout(HZ/10);
}
-
On Tue, Mar 03, 2015 at 02:17:24PM -0500, Boris Ostrovsky wrote:
> On 03/03/2015 12:42 PM, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > }
> >@@ -511,7 +508,8 @@ static void xen_cpu_die(unsigned int cpu)
> > schedule_timeout(HZ/10);
> > }
> >-cpu_die_common(cpu);
> >+
On 03/03/2015 12:42 PM, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
}
@@ -511,7 +508,8 @@ static void xen_cpu_die(unsigned int cpu)
schedule_timeout(HZ/10);
}
- cpu_die_common(cpu);
+ (void)cpu_wait_death(cpu, 5);
+ /* FIXME: Are the below calls really safe in case of
From: "Paul E. McKenney"
This commit removes the open-coded CPU-offline notification with new
common code. Among other things, this change avoids calling scheduler
code using RCU from an offline CPU that RCU is ignoring. It also allows
Xen to notice at online time that the CPU did not go
On Tue, Mar 03, 2015 at 02:17:24PM -0500, Boris Ostrovsky wrote:
On 03/03/2015 12:42 PM, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
}
@@ -511,7 +508,8 @@ static void xen_cpu_die(unsigned int cpu)
schedule_timeout(HZ/10);
}
-cpu_die_common(cpu);
+(void)cpu_wait_death(cpu, 5);
+
On 03/03/2015 12:42 PM, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
}
@@ -511,7 +508,8 @@ static void xen_cpu_die(unsigned int cpu)
schedule_timeout(HZ/10);
}
- cpu_die_common(cpu);
+ (void)cpu_wait_death(cpu, 5);
+ /* FIXME: Are the below calls really safe in case of
On 03/03/2015 02:42 PM, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
On Tue, Mar 03, 2015 at 02:17:24PM -0500, Boris Ostrovsky wrote:
On 03/03/2015 12:42 PM, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
}
@@ -511,7 +508,8 @@ static void xen_cpu_die(unsigned int cpu)
schedule_timeout(HZ/10);
}
-
On 03/03/2015 04:26 PM, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
On Tue, Mar 03, 2015 at 03:13:07PM -0500, Boris Ostrovsky wrote:
On 03/03/2015 02:42 PM, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
On Tue, Mar 03, 2015 at 02:17:24PM -0500, Boris Ostrovsky wrote:
On 03/03/2015 12:42 PM, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
}
@@ -511,7
On Tue, Mar 03, 2015 at 03:13:07PM -0500, Boris Ostrovsky wrote:
On 03/03/2015 02:42 PM, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
On Tue, Mar 03, 2015 at 02:17:24PM -0500, Boris Ostrovsky wrote:
On 03/03/2015 12:42 PM, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
}
@@ -511,7 +508,8 @@ static void xen_cpu_die(unsigned int cpu)
On Tue, Mar 03, 2015 at 05:06:50PM -0500, Boris Ostrovsky wrote:
On 03/03/2015 04:26 PM, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
On Tue, Mar 03, 2015 at 03:13:07PM -0500, Boris Ostrovsky wrote:
On 03/03/2015 02:42 PM, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
On Tue, Mar 03, 2015 at 02:17:24PM -0500, Boris Ostrovsky wrote:
On
From: Paul E. McKenney paul...@linux.vnet.ibm.com
This commit removes the open-coded CPU-offline notification with new
common code. Among other things, this change avoids calling scheduler
code using RCU from an offline CPU that RCU is ignoring. It also allows
Xen to notice at online time that
28 matches
Mail list logo