[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <51360452.5070200@citrix.com>
Date: Tue, 5 Mar 2013 14:42:26 +0000
From: David Vrabel <david.vrabel@...rix.com>
To: Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@...cle.com>
CC: Wei Liu <wei.liu2@...rix.com>,
"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
"annie.li@...cle.com" <annie.li@...cle.com>,
Ian Campbell <Ian.Campbell@...rix.com>,
"xen-devel@...ts.xen.org" <xen-devel@...ts.xen.org>
Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH 1/8] netback: don't bind kthread to cpu
On 05/03/13 13:56, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 05, 2013 at 01:30:10PM +0000, Wei Liu wrote:
>> On Mon, 2013-03-04 at 20:51 +0000, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
>>> 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()?
>>>
>>
>> Yes.
>>
>>> 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
>>
>> Yes, the hotplug path.
>>
>>> CPU hotplug notifier to re-bind the workers are appropiate?
>
> ?
> Can't that option be explored?
I'm not sure binding netback threads to particular VCPUs is useful
without also binding the events to the corresponding VCPUs.
I would hope that the scheduler would tend to the correct behavior if
threads aren't bound, anyway.
David
--
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