On Wed, 2011-02-16 at 18:15 +0000, Shriram Rajagopalan wrote:
> I didnt test the patch against the latest xen_suspend patch series you
> sent out. I couldnt find it in any of the trees. And since you said
> earlier that the xen_hvm_suspend fix would be (re)fixed to PM_FREEZE
> after my patch, I refrained from touching it. But I did test with
> 2.6.38-rc1 32 bit kernel, PVHVM mode. It "seemed" to work fine for
> save/restore/checkpoint. I could see the PM event messages in dmesg
> (freeze, thaw, restore related timing stats)
Great, thanks.
> On a related note, my initial kernel config had somehow enabled
> CONFIG_MICROCODE.
> So, with a PV kernel (2.6.38-rc1), I got the following WARNING stack
> trace for
> checkpoint & restore (ie freeze/thaw or freeze/restore)
> [...]
> sysdev_resume() call we make in drivers/xen/manage.c results in
> calling [sysdev_drivers]->(resume)()
> Looking at the microcode_core.c driver, the mc_sysdev resume function
> raises this warning if more than 1 CPU is online during system resume.
This is known issue, the 1 CPU constraint is a native thing and isn't
applicable to Xen.
There has been a patch floating around for ages. I saw some traffic
about it recently, let me dig...
... aha. it went into -mm last week, see
<201102082204.p18M4bqc028043@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
not bad for a patch originally posted in 2009!
http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/linux/kernel/1335664
[...]
> Of course, disabling CONFIG_MICROCODE makes the warning go away but I
> was thinking along the lines of a stock kernel config that has lots of
> things enabled. Correct me if I am wrong about this.
Consideration for stock kernel configurations (particularly distro
configs) is absolutely correct, thanks!
Ian.
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
|
Home