On Tuesday, 01 December 2009 at 17:20, Pasi Kärkkäinen wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 13, 2009 at 01:36:27PM -0800, Brendan Cully wrote:
> > On Friday, 13 November 2009 at 09:18, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
> > > On Thu, Nov 12, 2009 at 05:10:21PM -0800, Brendan Cully wrote:
> > > > The following patch series integrates the Remus control layer into
> > > > Xen. It provides a single user-visible script ("remus") to activate
> > > > Remus on a guest virtual machine, and the libraries required by that
> > > > script.
> > >
> > > Cool. Looking forward to read them.
> > > >
> > > > Network buffering requires the linux IMQ (http://linuximq.net) patch
> > > > to be applied to dom0. I'll mail the upstream version that applies to
> > > > the linux-2.6.18-xen.hg tree separately.
> > >
> > > Is there a 2.6.31.x variant of the code? Are there plans to submit the
> > > patches to LKML?
> >
> > I haven't tried to get this working on pvops yet, but it's simple in
> > theory:
> >
> > domU ought to work now, albeit somewhat slowly since the pvops domU
> > doesn't support suspend requests over a dedicated event
> > channel. Cooking up a patch for this is probably not too hard.
> >
>
> Do you know if anyone is working on the pvops support for suspend requests
> over dedicated even channel?
I'll probably take a crack at this soon. From a quick look at the
pvops suspend code, it seems like it may suffer from a race when
multiple suspends are issued that Keir fixed in the 2.6.18 tree some
time ago -- it'd be better to get that fixed before porting the event
channel patch.
In the meantime, it looks like I didn't include fallback support for
checkpointing with xenstore, so Remus doesn't support pvops domu at
all. I should have a patch to support the slow mode out today.
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
|
Home