On Thu, 2019-07-18 at 14:09 +0100, George Dunlap wrote:
> On 7/17/19 7:39 PM, Dario Faggioli wrote:
> > Point is the work of removing such vCPU from any CPU and from the
> > wait
> > list has been done already, in null_vcpu_sleep(), while the vCPU
> > was
> > going offline. So, here, we only need t
On 7/17/19 7:39 PM, Dario Faggioli wrote:
>>> @@ -518,6 +521,14 @@ static void null_vcpu_remove(const struct
>>> scheduler *ops, struct vcpu *v)
>>>
>>> lock = vcpu_schedule_lock_irq(v);
>>>
>>> +/* If offline, the vcpu shouldn't be assigned, nor in the
>>> waitqueue */
>>> +if ( u
On Wed, 2019-07-17 at 17:04 +0100, George Dunlap wrote:
> On 8/25/18 1:21 AM, Dario Faggioli wrote:
> > If a pCPU has been/is being offlined, we don't want it to be
> > neither
> > assigned to any pCPU, nor in the wait list.
> >
> > Therefore, when we detect that a vcpu is going offline, remove it
On 8/25/18 1:21 AM, Dario Faggioli wrote:
> If a pCPU has been/is being offlined, we don't want it to be neither
> assigned to any pCPU, nor in the wait list.
>
> Therefore, when we detect that a vcpu is going offline, remove it from
> both places.
Hmm, this commit message wasn't very informative
If a pCPU has been/is being offlined, we don't want it to be neither
assigned to any pCPU, nor in the wait list.
Therefore, when we detect that a vcpu is going offline, remove it from
both places.
Signed-off-by: Dario Faggioli
---
Cc: George Dunlap
Cc: Stefano Stabellini
Cc: Roger Pau Monne
-
