RE: [Xen-devel] RE: [PATCH 1/2] Vcpu hotplug: Move ACPI processor from \_PR to \_SB

["Jiang, Yunhong" <yunhong.jiang@xxxxxxxxx>]

>-----Original Message-----
>From: Keir Fraser [mailto:keir.fraser@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
>Sent: Friday, February 12, 2010 5:31 PM
>To: Jiang, Yunhong; Liu, Jinsong; xen-devel
>Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] RE: [PATCH 1/2] Vcpu hotplug: Move ACPI processor from
>\_PR to \_SB
>
>On 12/02/2010 09:25, "Jiang, Yunhong" <yunhong.jiang@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>>> I'd be a bit more comfortable if we had the cover of lots of other modern
>>> systems putting their processor objects under \_SB, but actually I've never
>>> seen one. Then again I haven't been looking at high-end systems supporting
>>> CPU hotplug and the like.
>>
>> Yes. I only saw \_SB definition in system supporting CPU hotplug. In fact, in
>> that system, the processor is defined under an container object in \_SB. As
>> currently all system in our lab is shutdown for CNY, I can't find more system
>> to check. And I suspect that we need care \_PR soluation, legacy OS support 
>> is
>> an important usage model for virtualization.
>>
>> One thing I noticed in my system is, there is a ACPI version option in my
>> desktop system, and I remember I saw that option in other system also. So one
>> possible solution is, place all processor definition under a seperated SSDT
>> file. An option is provided so that build.c can select different SSDT based 
>> on
>> user's input. But that make thing tricky still.
>
>You can see that xen-unstable tip can do this now. But I don't want to start
>dumping in loads of alternative DSDTs, as each one is a fair size. What I'm
>hoping is that this Linux regression is fixed fairly swiftly, and we can
>hence ignore it. :-) If not, we can think about what to do.

Sure, we will try to talk with our kernel engineer on this after CNY.

--jyh

>
> -- Keir
>


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