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] RE: [PATCH 1/2] Vcpu hotplug: Move ACPI processor from \

To: "Jiang, Yunhong" <yunhong.jiang@xxxxxxxxx>, "Liu, Jinsong" <jinsong.liu@xxxxxxxxx>, xen-devel <xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] RE: [PATCH 1/2] Vcpu hotplug: Move ACPI processor from \_PR to \_SB
From: Keir Fraser <keir.fraser@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 12 Feb 2010 09:30:56 +0000
Cc:
Delivery-date: Fri, 12 Feb 2010 01:31:15 -0800
Envelope-to: www-data@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <C8EDE645B81E5141A8C6B2F73FD926511BFBA581F6@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
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: AcqrQRdRK42tFnx6Rbij20ZBPcBQRQACAINSAA4+mEAADuDBxwAARQvQAAHaQXo=
Thread-topic: [Xen-devel] RE: [PATCH 1/2] Vcpu hotplug: Move ACPI processor from \_PR to \_SB
User-agent: Microsoft-Entourage/12.23.0.091001
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.

 -- Keir



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