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/
Home Products Support Community News


Re: [Xen-devel] pv 2.6.31 (kernel.org) and save/migrate fails, domU BUG

To: Ian Campbell <Ian.Campbell@xxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] pv 2.6.31 (kernel.org) and save/migrate fails, domU BUG
From: Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@xxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2009 11:28:20 -0800
Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@xxxxxxx>, Dan Magenheimer <dan.magenheimer@xxxxxxxxxx>, "Xen-Devel \(E-mail\)" <xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Delivery-date: Wed, 25 Nov 2009 11:28:43 -0800
Envelope-to: www-data@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <1259158328.7590.539.camel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
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>
References: <20091108154153.GM1434@xxxxxxxxxxx> <693ea516-aa5b-4f82-ad48-1bd51cfa3480@default> <20091108172747.GR1434@xxxxxxxxxxx> <20091110100806.GE16033@xxxxxxxxxxx> <4AFC9BFF.9030707@xxxxxxxx> <1259072824.7590.389.camel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <1259158328.7590.539.camel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sender: xen-devel-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv: Gecko/20091014 Fedora/3.0-2.8.b4.fc11 Lightning/1.0pre Thunderbird/3.0b4
On 11/25/09 06:12, Ian Campbell wrote:
> tick_resume() is never called on secondary processors. Presumably this
> is because they are offlined for suspend on native and so this is
> normally taken care of in the CPU onlining path. Under Xen we keep all
> CPUs online over a suspend.
> This patch papers over the issue for me but I will investigate a more
> generic, less hacky, way of doing to the same.
> tick_suspend is also only called on the boot CPU which I presume should
> be fixed too.

Yep.  I wonder how it ever worked?  There's been a fair amount of change
in the PM code, so that could have changed things.  I don't know if
there's a deep reason for not calling tick_resume() on all processors.

Rafael, tglx: suspend/resume under Xen doesn't need to hot unplug all
the CPUs, so we don't; the hypervisor can manage the context
save/restore for all CPUs.  Is there a deep reason why
timekeeping_resume() can't call the CLOCK_EVT_NOTIFY_RESUME notifier on
all online CPUs?

>  void xen_arch_resume(void)
>  {
> -     /* nothing */
> +     smp_call_function_many(cpu_online_mask, xen_vcpu_notify_restore,
> +                            (void *)CLOCK_EVT_NOTIFY_RESUME, 1);
>  }

This is equivalent to smp_call_function().


Xen-devel mailing list

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>