On Monday, February 21, 2011, Ian Campbell wrote:
> On Mon, 2011-02-21 at 16:40 +0000, Alan Stern wrote:
> > On Mon, 21 Feb 2011, Ian Campbell wrote:
> >
> > > On Sun, 2011-02-20 at 07:49 +0000, Pavel Machek wrote:
> > > > On Sat 2011-02-19 15:12:35, Shriram Rajagopalan wrote:
> > > > > The current implementation of xen guest save/restore/checkpoint
> > > > > functionality
> > > > > uses PM_SUSPEND and PM_RESUME events. This is not optimal when taking
> > > > > checkpoints of a virtual machine (where the suspend hypercall returns
> > > > > non-zero, requiring the devices and xenbus to just pickup from where
> > > > > they left
> > > > > off instead of a complete teardown/reconnect to backend).
> > > > >
> > > > > The following set of patches modify this implementation to use
> > > > > Hibernate style
> > > > > control flow (freeze/restore for save/restore and freeze/thaw for
> > > > > checkpoint,
> > > > > which is merely a cancelled save akin to failed swsusp() ).
> > > > >
> > > > > These patches are against Ian Campbell's PVHVM tree at
> > > > > git://xenbits.xen.org/people/ianc/linux-2.6.git for-stefano/pvhvm
> > > > >
> > > > > at commit 8a8d1bc753c4e2dda5f2890292d60c67d6ebb573
> > > > > kernel version: 2.6.38-rc4
> > > >
> > > > Series looks ok to me...
> > >
> > > Thanks Pavel, may we take that as an Acked-by?
> > >
> > > For my part the Xen side is:
> > > Acked-by: Ian Campbell <ian.campbell@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >
> > There's one part of this which could be troublesome. The new code
> > generates FREEZE, THAW, and RESTORE events even in kernels where
> > CONFIG_HIBERNATION isn't set. In such kernels, drivers are not
> > obliged to handle these events correctly.
>
> The dependencies on CONFIG_HIBERNATION which I can see appear to be more
> often at the bus level (e.g. in drivers/acpi drivers/pci/pci-driver.c
> etc) is that right?
>
> For a PV guest only the Xen PV drivers really matter.
>
> But for a PVHVM guest you are right since there are the emulated "PC"
> devices though which could be problematic. There's nothing especially
> thrilling in that set of devices although I don't think that invalidates
> your point.
>
> > Shouldn't the CONFIG_XEN_SAVE_RESTORE option select CONFIG_HIBERNATION?
> > In which case the #ifdef lines in pm_op() wouldn't need to be changed.
>
> I think selecting user-visible symbols is generally frowned upon.
>
> But apart from that I was concerned that tying the Xen functionality
> into the hibernation option was a bit odd/artificial. Perhaps it's the
> only solution though.
I'd very much prefer it if the patchset didn't touch drivers/base/power/main.c.
However, if you want to select CONFIG_HIBERNATION from CONFIG_XEN_SAVE_RESTORE,
you should make sure that CONFIG_HIBERNATION is really selectable (ie.
CONFIG_SWAP is set and CONFIG_ARCH_HIBERNATION_POSSIBLE is set).
Thanks,
Rafael
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
|
Home