On Fri, 2019-08-02 at 15:07 +0200, Juergen Gross wrote:
> Today a cpu which is removed from the system is taken directly from
> Pool0 to the offline state. This will conflict with the new idle
> scheduler, so remove it from Pool0 first. Additionally accept
> removing
> a free cpu instead of requiring it to be in Pool0.
> 
> For the resume failed case we need to call the scheduler code for
> that
> situation after the cpupool handling, so move the scheduler code into
> a function and call it from cpupool_cpu_remove_forced() and remove
> the
> CPU_RESUME_FAILED case from cpu_schedule_callback().
> 
> Note that we are calling now schedule_cpu_switch() in stop_machine
> context so we need to switch from spinlock_irq to spinlock_irqsave.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Juergen Gross <jgross@suse.com>
> ---
> 
> --- a/xen/common/cpupool.c
> +++ b/xen/common/cpupool.c
> @@ -282,22 +282,14 @@ static int cpupool_assign_cpu_locked(struct
> cpupool *c, unsigned int cpu)
>      return 0;
>  }
>  
> -static long cpupool_unassign_cpu_helper(void *info)
> +static int cpupool_unassign_cpu_epilogue(struct cpupool *c)
>
in schedule.c, for a similar situation, we have used '_start' and
'_finish' as suffixes. What do you think about using those here too?

It's certainly a minor thing, I know, but I (personally) like them
better (especially than 'epilogue') and I think it gives us some
consistency (yes, sure, different files.. but scheduling and cpupools
are quite tightly related).

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)