On Fri, 2019-08-09 at 16:58 +0200, Juergen Gross wrote:
> In order to prepare for multiple vcpus per schedule unit move struct
> task_slice in schedule() from the local stack into struct sched_unit
> of the currently running unit. To make access easier for the single
> schedulers add the pointer of the currently running unit as a
> parameter
> of do_schedule().
> 
> While at it switch the tasklet_work_scheduled parameter of
> do_schedule() from bool_t to bool.
> 
> As struct task_slice is only ever modified with the local schedule
> lock held it is safe to directly set the different units in struct
> sched_unit instead of using an on-stack copy for returning the data.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Juergen Gross <jgross@suse.com>
> ---
> 
> diff --git a/xen/common/schedule.c b/xen/common/schedule.c
> index e4d0dd4b65..d2fc89d983 100644
> --- a/xen/common/schedule.c
> +++ b/xen/common/schedule.c
> @@ -1751,9 +1749,7 @@ static void schedule(void)
>          TRACE_4D(TRC_SCHED_SWITCH_INFCONT,
>                   next->domain->domain_id, next->unit_id,
>                   now - prev->state_entry_time,
> -                 next_slice.time);
> -        trace_continue_running(next->vcpu_list);
> -        return continue_running(prev->vcpu_list);
> +                 prev->next_time);
>      }
>  
Mmm... I'm sorry, but I'm not sure I understand what is going on here.

Do you mind explaining why we're not calling continue_running() any
longer (and why this happens in this patch)?

Thanks and Regards
-- 
Dario Faggioli, Ph.D
http://about.me/dario.faggioli
Virtualization Software Engineer
SUSE Labs, SUSE https://www.suse.com/
-------------------------------------------------------------------
<<This happens because _I_ choose it to happen!>> (Raistlin Majere)