Hi Stefano,
On Mon, May 14, 2018 at 6:59 PM, Stefano Stabellini
wrote:
> On Mon, 14 May 2018, Julien Grall wrote:
>> On 11/05/18 22:47, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
>> > On Fri, 11 May 2018, Dario Faggioli wrote:
>> > > On Fri, 2018-05-11 at 14:08 +0100, Julien Grall wrote:
>> > > > The whole idea h
On Mon, 14 May 2018, Julien Grall wrote:
> On 11/05/18 22:47, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
> > On Fri, 11 May 2018, Dario Faggioli wrote:
> > > On Fri, 2018-05-11 at 14:08 +0100, Julien Grall wrote:
> > > > The whole idea here is we have only one place taking the decision and
> > > > we
> > > > don't
On 11/05/18 22:47, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
On Fri, 11 May 2018, Dario Faggioli wrote:
On Fri, 2018-05-11 at 14:08 +0100, Julien Grall wrote:
The whole idea here is we have only one place taking the decision and
we
don't spread BUG_ON()/panic/stop_cpu everywhere. The benefit is
having
only o
On Fri, 11 May 2018, Dario Faggioli wrote:
> On Fri, 2018-05-11 at 14:08 +0100, Julien Grall wrote:
> > The whole idea here is we have only one place taking the decision and
> > we
> > don't spread BUG_ON()/panic/stop_cpu everywhere. The benefit is
> > having
> > only one place to fix over multip
On Fri, 2018-05-11 at 15:44 +0200, Mirela Simonovic wrote:
> Hi Dario and Julien,
>
Err... you've dropped the list and everyone else but me. Re-adding...
> Thanks for the feedback to both.
>
You're welcome. :-)
> I think we need to roll back here. I
> believe the root cause of this is an attem
On Fri, 2018-05-11 at 14:08 +0100, Julien Grall wrote:
> The whole idea here is we have only one place taking the decision and
> we
> don't spread BUG_ON()/panic/stop_cpu everywhere. The benefit is
> having
> only one place to fix over multiple one because very likely the
> decision
> is the sam
On Fri, 2018-05-11 at 11:54 +0100, Julien Grall wrote:
> On 11/05/18 11:41, Mirela Simonovic wrote:
> "We should really avoid to use panic(...) if this is something the
> system can survive. In that specific case, it would only affect the
> current CPU. So it would be better to return an error an
On 11/05/18 13:20, Mirela Simonovic wrote:
Hi,
On Fri, May 11, 2018 at 2:07 PM, Mirela Simonovic
wrote:
On Fri, May 11, 2018 at 12:54 PM, Julien Grall wrote:
On 11/05/18 11:41, Mirela Simonovic wrote:
On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 6:24 PM, Dario Faggioli
wrote:
On Thu, 2018-05-10 at 17:49 +02
On Fri, 2018-05-11 at 12:41 +0200, Mirela Simonovic wrote:
> Hi Dario,
>
Hi,
> On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 6:24 PM, Dario Faggioli
> wrote:
> > I may very well be missing or misunderstanding something, but I
> > continue to think that the problem here is that CPU_STARTING can't,
> > right now, fail,
Hi,
On Fri, May 11, 2018 at 2:07 PM, Mirela Simonovic
wrote:
> Hi Julien,
>
> On Fri, May 11, 2018 at 12:54 PM, Julien Grall wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 11/05/18 11:41, Mirela Simonovic wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi Dario,
>>>
>>> On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 6:24 PM, Dario Faggioli
>>> wrote:
On Thu, 2018-05-
Hi Julien,
On Fri, May 11, 2018 at 12:54 PM, Julien Grall wrote:
>
>
> On 11/05/18 11:41, Mirela Simonovic wrote:
>>
>> Hi Dario,
>>
>> On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 6:24 PM, Dario Faggioli
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Thu, 2018-05-10 at 17:49 +0200, Mirela Simonovic wrote:
Regardless of the fact th
On 11/05/18 11:41, Mirela Simonovic wrote:
Hi Dario,
On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 6:24 PM, Dario Faggioli wrote:
On Thu, 2018-05-10 at 17:49 +0200, Mirela Simonovic wrote:
Regardless of the fact that the notifier returns an error or not, I
believe it would be good and safe to set priority and do
Hi Dario,
On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 6:24 PM, Dario Faggioli wrote:
> On Thu, 2018-05-10 at 17:49 +0200, Mirela Simonovic wrote:
>> Regardless of the fact that the notifier returns an error or not, I
>> believe it would be good and safe to set priority and document that
>> priority zero would cause
On Thu, 2018-05-10 at 17:49 +0200, Mirela Simonovic wrote:
> Regardless of the fact that the notifier returns an error or not, I
> believe it would be good and safe to set priority and document that
> priority zero would cause racing issue in the scenario I debugged
> today. I'm pretty sure that th
On Thu, 2018-05-10 at 17:02 +0100, Julien Grall wrote:
> On 10/05/18 16:49, Mirela Simonovic wrote:
> > Regardless of the fact that the notifier returns an error or not, I
> > believe it would be good and safe to set priority and document that
> > priority zero would cause racing issue in the scena
On Thu, 2018-05-10 at 16:13 +0100, Julien Grall wrote:
> On 10/05/18 16:00, Mirela Simonovic wrote:
> > > If you add your callback to CPU_UP_PREPARE, instead than to
> > > CPU_STARTING, SCHED_OP(init_pdata) wouldn't be called, without
> > > having
> > > to fiddle with priorities.
>
> This function
On 10/05/18 16:49, Mirela Simonovic wrote:
Hi Julien,
Hi,
On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 5:13 PM, Julien Grall wrote:
On 10/05/18 16:00, Mirela Simonovic wrote:
Hi Dario,
On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 4:25 PM, Dario Faggioli
wrote:
On Thu, 2018-05-10 at 15:24 +0200, Mirela Simonovic wrote:
O
Hi Julien,
On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 5:13 PM, Julien Grall wrote:
>
>
> On 10/05/18 16:00, Mirela Simonovic wrote:
>>
>> Hi Dario,
>>
>> On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 4:25 PM, Dario Faggioli
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Thu, 2018-05-10 at 15:24 +0200, Mirela Simonovic wrote:
On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 1:
On 10/05/18 16:00, Mirela Simonovic wrote:
Hi Dario,
On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 4:25 PM, Dario Faggioli wrote:
On Thu, 2018-05-10 at 15:24 +0200, Mirela Simonovic wrote:
On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 1:57 PM, Mirela Simonovic
Please take a look at function cpu_schedule_callback in schedule.c.
With
Hi Dario,
On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 4:25 PM, Dario Faggioli wrote:
> On Thu, 2018-05-10 at 15:24 +0200, Mirela Simonovic wrote:
>> On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 1:57 PM, Mirela Simonovic
>>
>> > Please take a look at function cpu_schedule_callback in schedule.c.
>> > Within switch, case CPU_DEAD doesn't
On 10/05/18 15:12, Mirela Simonovic wrote:
Hi Julien,
On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 3:29 PM, Julien Grall wrote:
Hi,
On 05/10/2018 02:24 PM, Mirela Simonovic wrote:
On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 1:57 PM, Mirela Simonovic
wrote:
I have tested the tuned scenario where enabling capabilities fails -
On Thu, 2018-05-10 at 15:24 +0200, Mirela Simonovic wrote:
> On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 1:57 PM, Mirela Simonovic
>
> > Please take a look at function cpu_schedule_callback in schedule.c.
> > Within switch, case CPU_DEAD doesn't have a break, causing the
> > bellow
> > CPU_UP_CANCELED to execute as w
Hi Julien,
On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 3:29 PM, Julien Grall wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 05/10/2018 02:24 PM, Mirela Simonovic wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 1:57 PM, Mirela Simonovic
>> wrote:
>
>
>> I have tested the tuned scenario where enabling capabilities fails -
>> the erroneous CPU is stopped/
On Thu, 2018-05-10 at 13:57 +0200, Mirela Simonovic wrote:
> Hi,
>
> +Dario
>
Thanks.
> On Wed, May 9, 2018 at 6:32 PM, Julien Grall
> wrote:
> > If there is a bug in the scheduler it should be fixed rather trying
> > to
> > workaround with a panic in the code. If you provide more details,
> >
Hi,
On 05/10/2018 02:24 PM, Mirela Simonovic wrote:
On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 1:57 PM, Mirela Simonovic
wrote:
I have tested the tuned scenario where enabling capabilities fails -
the erroneous CPU is stopped/powered down and the system continues to
work fine without it. Although I still don't
On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 1:57 PM, Mirela Simonovic
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> +Dario
>
> On Wed, May 9, 2018 at 6:32 PM, Julien Grall wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 09/05/18 16:48, Mirela Simonovic wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi Julien,
>>
>>
>> Hi Mirela,
>>
>>
>>> On Mon, Apr 30, 2018 at 6:09 PM, Julien Grall
>>> wrote:
>>>
Hi,
+Dario
On Wed, May 9, 2018 at 6:32 PM, Julien Grall wrote:
>
>
> On 09/05/18 16:48, Mirela Simonovic wrote:
>>
>> Hi Julien,
>
>
> Hi Mirela,
>
>
>> On Mon, Apr 30, 2018 at 6:09 PM, Julien Grall
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi Mirela,
>>>
>>>
>>> On 27/04/18 18:12, Mirela Simonovic wrote:
>>
On 09/05/18 16:48, Mirela Simonovic wrote:
Hi Julien,
Hi Mirela,
On Mon, Apr 30, 2018 at 6:09 PM, Julien Grall wrote:
Hi Mirela,
On 27/04/18 18:12, Mirela Simonovic wrote:
On boot, enabling errata workarounds will be triggered by the boot CPU
from start_xen(). On CPU hotplug (non-boot
Hi Julien,
On Mon, Apr 30, 2018 at 6:09 PM, Julien Grall wrote:
> Hi Mirela,
>
>
> On 27/04/18 18:12, Mirela Simonovic wrote:
>>
>> On boot, enabling errata workarounds will be triggered by the boot CPU
>> from start_xen(). On CPU hotplug (non-boot scenario) this would not be
>> done. This patch
Hi Mirela,
On 27/04/18 18:12, Mirela Simonovic wrote:
On boot, enabling errata workarounds will be triggered by the boot CPU
from start_xen(). On CPU hotplug (non-boot scenario) this would not be
done. This patch adds the code required to enable errata workarounds
for a CPU being hotplugged afte
On boot, enabling errata workarounds will be triggered by the boot CPU
from start_xen(). On CPU hotplug (non-boot scenario) this would not be
done. This patch adds the code required to enable errata workarounds
for a CPU being hotplugged after the system boots. This is triggered
using a notifier. I
31 matches
Mail list logo
