[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20130304205154.GB16762@phenom.dumpdata.com>
Date: Mon, 4 Mar 2013 15:51:54 -0500
From: Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@...cle.com>
To: Wei Liu <wei.liu2@...rix.com>
Cc: xen-devel@...ts.xen.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
ian.campbell@...rix.com, annie.li@...cle.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/8] netback: don't bind kthread to cpu
On Fri, Feb 15, 2013 at 04:00:02PM +0000, Wei Liu wrote:
> The initialization process makes an assumption that the online cpus are
> numbered from 0 to xen_netbk_group_nr-1, which is not always true.
And xen_netbk_group_nr is num_online_cpus()?
So under what conditions does this change? Is this when the CPU hotplug
is involved and the CPUs go offline? In which case should there be a
CPU hotplug notifier to re-bind the workers are appropiate?
>
> As we only need a pool of worker threads, simply don't bind them to specific
> cpus.
OK. Is there another method of doing this? Are there patches to make the thread
try to be vCPU->guest affinite?
>
> Signed-off-by: Wei Liu <wei.liu2@...rix.com>
> ---
> drivers/net/xen-netback/netback.c | 2 --
> 1 file changed, 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/net/xen-netback/netback.c b/drivers/net/xen-netback/netback.c
> index 3ae49b1..db8d45a 100644
> --- a/drivers/net/xen-netback/netback.c
> +++ b/drivers/net/xen-netback/netback.c
> @@ -1729,8 +1729,6 @@ static int __init netback_init(void)
> goto failed_init;
> }
>
> - kthread_bind(netbk->task, group);
> -
> INIT_LIST_HEAD(&netbk->net_schedule_list);
>
> spin_lock_init(&netbk->net_schedule_list_lock);
> --
> 1.7.10.4
>
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists