On Mon, 2015-09-21 at 11:59 +0000, Wu, Feng wrote: > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: George Dunlap [mailto:george.dun...@citrix.com]
> > > I think the handling for lazy context switch is not only for the > > > blocking case, > > > we still need to do something for lazy context switch even we > > > handled the > > > blocking case in vcpu_block(), such as, > > > 1. For non-idle -> idle > > > - set 'SN' > > > > If we set SN in vcpu_block(), then we don't need to set it on > > context > > switch -- 是不是？ > > For preemption case (not blocking case) , we still need to clear/set > SN, and > this has no business with vcpu_block()/vcpu_wake(), right? Do I miss > something > here? BTW, you Chinese is good! :) > Well, sure, preemptions are fine being dealt with during context switches. AFAICR, Geoge was suggesting investigating the possibility of doing that within the already existing arch specific part of the context switch itself. Have you checked whether that would be possible? If yes, it really would be great, IMO. Note that, in case of preemptions, we are switching from a non-idle vcpu to another, non-idle, vcpu, so lazy context switching to the idle vcpu should not have much to do with this case... Was this something you were saying something/asking about above? (seems so, but I can't be sure, so I thought I better ask :-) ). Regards, Dario -- <<This happens because I choose it to happen!>> (Raistlin Majere) ----------------------------------------------------------------- Dario Faggioli, Ph.D, http://about.me/dario.faggioli Senior Software Engineer, Citrix Systems R&D Ltd., Cambridge (UK)
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
_______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xen.org http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
