[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20120510145745.GO26152@phenom.dumpdata.com>
Date: Thu, 10 May 2012 10:57:45 -0400
From: Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@...cle.com>
To: "Liu, Jinsong" <jinsong.liu@...el.com>
Cc: "xen-devel@...ts.xensource.com" <xen-devel@...ts.xensource.com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] Xen physical cpus interface
On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 02:54:07PM +0000, Liu, Jinsong wrote:
> Konrad,
>
> Thanks for help me review!
Sure thing.
> Update according to your suggestion.
> Add some comments below.
>
> >>
> >> Manage physical cpus in dom0, get physical cpus info and provide sys
> >> interface.
> >
> > Anything that exposes SysFS attributes needs documentation in
> > Documentation/ABI
>
> Yes, added.
>
> >
> > Can you explain what this solves? And if there are any
> > userland applications that use this?
> >
>
> It provide cpu online/offline interface to user. User can use it for their own purpose, like power saving - by offlining some cpus when light workload it save power greatly.
OK, please include that in the descritpion.
>
> >
> >
> >> + switch (buf[0]) {
> >
> > Use strict_strtoull pls.
>
> kernel suggest:
> WARNING: strict_strtoull is obsolete, use kstrtoull instead :)
Ah yes.
.. snip..
> > And then here dev->release = &pcpu_release;
> >
>
> Hmm, it's good if it's convenient to do it automatically via dev->release.
> However, dev container (pcpu) would be free at some other error cases, so I prefer do it 'manually'.
You could also call pcpu_release(..) to do it manually.
>
> >
> >> + /* Not open pcpu0 online access to user */
> >
> > Huh? You mean "Nobody can touch PCPU0" ?
>
> Add comments:
> /*
> * Xen never offline cpu0 due to several restrictions
> * and assumptions. This basically doesn't add a sys control
> * to user, one cannot attempt to offline BSP.
> */
>
> >
> > Why? Why can they touch the other ones? And better yet,
> > what happens if one boots without "dom0_max_vcpus=X"
> > and powers of some of the CPUs?
> >
>
> Only those at cpu present map has its sys interface.
OK, put that in the file so folks are aware of the limitations.
>
> >> +static int __init xen_pcpu_init(void)
> >> +{
> >> + int ret;
> >> +
> >> + if (!xen_initial_domain())
> >> + return -ENODEV;
> >> +
> >> + ret = subsys_system_register(&xen_pcpu_subsys, NULL); + if (ret) {
> >> + pr_warning(XEN_PCPU "Failed to register pcpu subsys\n");
> >> + return ret; + }
> >> +
> >> + INIT_LIST_HEAD(&xen_pcpus.list);
> >> +
> >> + ret = xen_sync_pcpus();
> >> + if (ret) {
> >> + pr_warning(XEN_PCPU "Failed to sync pcpu info\n"); + return ret;
> >> + }
> >> +
> >> + ret = bind_virq_to_irqhandler(VIRQ_PCPU_STATE, 0,
> >> + xen_pcpu_interrupt, 0,
> >> + "pcpu", NULL);
> >
> > "xen-pcpu"
> >
> >> + if (ret < 0) {
> >> + pr_warning(XEN_PCPU "Failed to bind pcpu virq\n");
> >
> > Shouldn't you delete what 'xen_sync_pcpus' did?
>
> yes, add error handling.
>
> > Or is it OK to still work without the interrupts? What is the purpose
> > of that interrupt? How does it actually work - the hypervisor
> > decides when/where to turn off CPUs?
> >
>
> user online/offline cpu via sys interface --> xen implement --> inject virq back to dom0 --> sync cpu status.
Add that in the file so the workflow is explained.
>
> Thanks,
> Jinsong
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists