Our current interrupt handlers assume that they leave over the same task
and CPU they entered. But CONFIG_XENO_HW_UNLOCKED_SWITCH and commit
f6af9b831c broke this assumption: xnpod_schedule invoked from the
handler tail can now actually trigger a domain migration, and that can
also include a CPU
On 06/17/2011 11:26 AM, Jan Kiszka wrote:
Our current interrupt handlers assume that they leave over the same task
and CPU they entered. But CONFIG_XENO_HW_UNLOCKED_SWITCH and commit
f6af9b831c broke this assumption: xnpod_schedule invoked from the
handler tail can now actually trigger a
On 2011-06-17 12:55, Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
On 06/17/2011 11:26 AM, Jan Kiszka wrote:
Our current interrupt handlers assume that they leave over the same task
and CPU they entered. But CONFIG_XENO_HW_UNLOCKED_SWITCH and commit
f6af9b831c broke this assumption: xnpod_schedule invoked from
On 06/17/2011 01:03 PM, Jan Kiszka wrote:
On 2011-06-17 12:55, Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
On 06/17/2011 11:26 AM, Jan Kiszka wrote:
Our current interrupt handlers assume that they leave over the same task
and CPU they entered. But CONFIG_XENO_HW_UNLOCKED_SWITCH and commit
f6af9b831c broke
On 2011-06-17 13:06, Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
On 06/17/2011 01:03 PM, Jan Kiszka wrote:
On 2011-06-17 12:55, Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
On 06/17/2011 11:26 AM, Jan Kiszka wrote:
Our current interrupt handlers assume that they leave over the same task
and CPU they entered. But
On 06/17/2011 01:22 PM, Jan Kiszka wrote:
On 2011-06-17 13:06, Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
On 06/17/2011 01:03 PM, Jan Kiszka wrote:
On 2011-06-17 12:55, Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
On 06/17/2011 11:26 AM, Jan Kiszka wrote:
Our current interrupt handlers assume that they leave over the same
On 2011-06-17 13:26, Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
On 06/17/2011 01:22 PM, Jan Kiszka wrote:
On 2011-06-17 13:06, Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
On 06/17/2011 01:03 PM, Jan Kiszka wrote:
On 2011-06-17 12:55, Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
On 06/17/2011 11:26 AM, Jan Kiszka wrote:
Our current
