WARNING - OLD ARCHIVES

This is an archived copy of the Xen.org mailing list, which we have preserved to ensure that existing links to archives are not broken. The live archive, which contains the latest emails, can be found at http://lists.xen.org/
   
 
 
Xen 
 
Home Products Support Community News
 
   
 

xen-devel

Re: [Xen-devel] RE: regression from IRQ handling changes?

To: Jan Beulich <JBeulich@xxxxxxxxxx>, Xiantao Zhang <xiantao.zhang@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] RE: regression from IRQ handling changes?
From: Keir Fraser <keir.fraser@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 2009 15:30:53 +0100
Cc: "xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Delivery-date: Mon, 14 Sep 2009 07:31:22 -0700
Envelope-to: www-data@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <4AAE06020200007800014EF7@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
List-help: <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=help>
List-id: Xen developer discussion <xen-devel.lists.xensource.com>
List-post: <mailto:xen-devel@lists.xensource.com>
List-subscribe: <http://lists.xensource.com/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>, <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=subscribe>
List-unsubscribe: <http://lists.xensource.com/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>, <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=unsubscribe>
Sender: xen-devel-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Thread-index: Aco1CQMNxcazmCvSTaKfUNFgiuZNngAPvOSR
Thread-topic: [Xen-devel] RE: regression from IRQ handling changes?
User-agent: Microsoft-Entourage/12.20.0.090605
It isn't hard to boot UP and with APIC disabled to test this case. I would
prefer to contineu to support it for a while longer, so please do take a
look at it Xiantao.

 Thanks,
 Keir

On 14/09/2009 07:59, "Jan Beulich" <JBeulich@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> While agreeing from a technical perspective, customer perspective on our
> products is different: Whenever something like proper UP (no-APIC)
> support breaks in our products, we almost immediately get reports of this,
> since there will always be someone running Xen e.g. on an old laptop (no
> matter whether Xen is meant to be run there).
> 
> Less frequent for ACPI, but quite recently we had a report there too (and
> I'm under the impression that no-ACPI support has been broken for quite
> a while) - luckily, a BIOS update fixed the issue for them, so I didn't have
> to look into the issue in more detail.
> 
> Otoh, if we really wanted to switch over to APIC and ACPI being a
> requirement, I wouldn't mind that step - it just should be that it's clear
> whether this is intended to work. And if it isn't, quite a bit of code should
> be eliminated/cleaned up.
> 
> Jan
> 
>>>> "Zhang, Xiantao" <xiantao.zhang@xxxxxxxxx> 12.09.09 03:58 >>>
> Jan, 
>     Frankly speaking, we haven't done the testings which can cover non-APIC
> case.  Does anybody really care about such case now ?  I can't figure out the
> reason why modern system doesn't leverage apic. If non-APIC case is necessary,
> maybe we need to fix it.   As I know, Xen is becoming more and more dependent
> on the components (APIC, ACPI....), so non-APIC or non-ACPI cases maybe
> becoming less and less important.
> Xiantao
> 
> Jan Beulich wrote:
>> Using c/s 20189, I can't boot my (only) system without APIC anymore. I
>> didn't have time to look into the issue in more detail so far, but
>> since it seems likely that this is connected to the recent
>> per-CPU-IRQ-vector changes, I wanted to ask whether these had been
>> tested on APIC-less systems.
>> 
>> Thanks, Jan
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Xen-devel mailing list
> Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel



_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel