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

[Xen-devel] Re: Paravirtualizing bits of acpi access

To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@xxxxxxx>
Subject: [Xen-devel] Re: Paravirtualizing bits of acpi access
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@xxxxxxx>
Date: Sun, 22 Mar 2009 14:14:36 +0100
Cc: "Brown, Len" <len.brown@xxxxxxxxx>, Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@xxxxxxxx>, Xen-devel <xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, the arch/x86 maintainers <x86@xxxxxxxxxx>, linux-acpi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Delivery-date: Sun, 22 Mar 2009 06:15:14 -0700
Envelope-to: www-data@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <200903221228.40181.rjw@xxxxxxx>
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: <49C484B7.20100@xxxxxxxx> <200903211810.53990.rjw@xxxxxxx> <49C5BDD8.1050605@xxxxxxxx> <200903221228.40181.rjw@xxxxxxx>
Sender: xen-devel-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17)
* Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@xxxxxxx> wrote:

> On Sunday 22 March 2009, Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote:
> > Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > > Well, why don't you implement the platform suspend operations for Xen?
> > > I guess you don't want ACPI _PTS to be executed during suspend as well.
> > >   
> > 
> > I don't know.  What's _PTS?
> 
> It's an ACPI method called to prepare the platform to enter the sleep state
> (the name stands for "prepare to sleep").  Executing it may affect the
> hardware.
> 
> > I think for the most part we want Linux to do most of the acpi 
> > work of bringing the machine into an idle state.  Its just that 
> > Xen is responsible for the very low level cpu context 
> > save/restore, because the Linux kernel is still running on vcpus 
> > rather than the physical cpus.
> 
> I think you really should not execute any global ACPI methods to 
> suspend a guest, because that may affect the host.  That's why I 
> think it's better to regard Xen as a platform and implement a 
> separate set of suspend operations for it.

I'd agree with that. That also allows the reuse of existing 
callbacks, right?

        Ingo

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

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