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] Some question to changeset 17962

To: "Jiang, Yunhong" <yunhong.jiang@xxxxxxxxx>, "brendan@xxxxxxxxx" <brendan@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] Some question to changeset 17962
From: Keir Fraser <keir.fraser@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 09 Mar 2009 09:44:50 +0000
Cc: "xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Delivery-date: Mon, 09 Mar 2009 02:45:32 -0700
Envelope-to: www-data@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <E2263E4A5B2284449EEBD0AAB751098401C7D2A853@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
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: AcmgjCFsrvJdjiWJS6eP5QZBhqthpAABW3FXAAHEP9AAAMQb7g==
Thread-topic: [Xen-devel] Some question to changeset 17962
User-agent: Microsoft-Entourage/12.15.0.081119
On 09/03/2009 09:25, "Jiang, Yunhong" <yunhong.jiang@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

>> For (b), Xen itself has okay semantics -- the most recent
>> caller to set the
>> suspend_evtchn always wins. How tools make use of that policy
>> is up to them
>> -- since we can only have one save process per domain at a time, it all
>> works out fine. 
> 
> Are there any special reason that not the first caller hold it (which is more
> nature IMO), and the later caller will failed?

The only reason I can think is if the xc_save process fails and exit()s and
then we want to continue execution of the domain and maybe try xc_save again
later. Then the first registered evtchn won't be cleaned up and we would
like to overwrite it when we next try xc_save.

Arguably we should make the kernel evtchn driver aware of suspend evtchns
and clean them up on process destruction. Then we could tighten up Xen's
checking. But... It's all kind of a hassle for hardly any reward!

 -- Keir



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