On Tue, 2016-09-13 at 12:28 +0100, George Dunlap wrote:
> On 17/08/16 18:18, Dario Faggioli wrote:
> >
> diff --git a/xen/common/sched_credit2.c
> > @@ -2233,7 +2241,8 @@ void __dump_execstate(void *unused);
> > static struct csched2_vcpu *
> > runq_candidate(struct csched2_runqueue_data *rqd,
On 17/08/16 18:18, Dario Faggioli wrote:
> Right now, the following scenario can occurr:
> - upon vcpu v wakeup, v itself is put in the runqueue,
>and pcpu X is tickled;
> - pcpu Y schedules (for whatever reason), sees v in
>the runqueue and picks it up.
>
> This may seem ok (or even a
On 05/09/16 14:47, Dario Faggioli wrote:
> On Wed, 2016-08-31 at 18:10 +0100, anshul makkar wrote:
>> On 17/08/16 18:18, Dario Faggioli wrote:
>>>
>>> Right now, the following scenario can occurr:
>>> - upon vcpu v wakeup, v itself is put in the runqueue,
>>> and pcpu X is tickled;
>>> -
On 05/09/16 14:47, Dario Faggioli wrote:
On Wed, 2016-08-31 at 18:10 +0100, anshul makkar wrote:
On 17/08/16 18:18, Dario Faggioli wrote:
@@ -1266,6 +1272,7 @@ csched2_alloc_vdata(const struct scheduler
*ops, struct vcpu *vc, void *dd)
ASSERT(svc->sdom != NULL);
On Wed, 2016-08-31 at 18:10 +0100, anshul makkar wrote:
> On 17/08/16 18:18, Dario Faggioli wrote:
> >
> > Right now, the following scenario can occurr:
> > - upon vcpu v wakeup, v itself is put in the runqueue,
> > and pcpu X is tickled;
> > - pcpu Y schedules (for whatever reason), sees
On 17/08/16 18:18, Dario Faggioli wrote:
Right now, the following scenario can occurr:
- upon vcpu v wakeup, v itself is put in the runqueue,
and pcpu X is tickled;
- pcpu Y schedules (for whatever reason), sees v in
the runqueue and picks it up.
This may seem ok (or even a good
Right now, the following scenario can occurr:
- upon vcpu v wakeup, v itself is put in the runqueue,
and pcpu X is tickled;
- pcpu Y schedules (for whatever reason), sees v in
the runqueue and picks it up.
This may seem ok (or even a good thing), but it's not.
In fact, if runq_tickle()
