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-ia64-devel

Re: [Patch][RFC] fix PAL_HALT ( is Re: [Xen-ia64-devel] [RFC] dump core

On Wed, Jan 24, 2007 at 09:19:09AM -0700, Alex Williamson wrote:
> On Wed, 2007-01-24 at 11:14 +0100, tgingold@xxxxxxx wrote:
> > Selon Isaku Yamahata <yamahata@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
> > 
> > > On Wed, Jan 24, 2007 at 11:43:37AM +0900, Akio Takebe wrote:
> > [...]
> > > According to SDM vol2 11.9, PAL_HALT places cpu in low power state.
> > Correct.
> > 
> > > So the current behaviour that xen/ia64 shutdown unconditionally is
> > > wrong.
> > Yes, but that's the code in linux/ia64.
> > Why linux/ia64 doesn't call the shutdown EFI runtime service ?  I don't 
> > know.
> > Maybe Alex knows the answer.
> 
>    I think we need to be sure we're getting the correct expected user
> behavior for domains.  A user expects the following on real hardware:
> 
>       * halt: Machine is stopped, not shutdown, not rebooted.
>         Linux/ia64 uses PAL_HALT for this.
>       * restart/reboot: Machine is reset.  Linux/ia64 uses
>         efi.reset_system for this.
>       * poweroff: Machine is turned off.  Linux/ia64 uses ACPI S5 power
>         state if pm_power_off is set, otherwise behaves as if halted.
> 
> So, for PV domains, cpu_halt() should just take the vcpu offline.  I
> don't think there's any reason to special case the last vcpu going
> offline and shutdown the domain.  That's not what real hardware does.
Thanks for the details.  So current Xen/ia64 PAL_HALT behavior is not
correct.

> Machine restart/reboot should (and does) happen transparently when Xen
> catches the EFI call.  To support poweroff, I think we should set
> pm_power_off to a Xen specific hypervisor shutdown routine.  The
> abstraction is already in place to do this.
> 
> Do VTI domains implement enough ACPI to provide the OS a fake S5 power
> state?  If not, a PV-on-HVM driver could set pm_power_off and use a
> hypercall, but that means HVM domains would need a Xen driver for some
> pretty basic functionality.  Maybe all vcpus in cpu_halt() should only
> be cause for a domain shutdown for VTI domains?
I think VTI support S5, if not it should :-)

[...]
Tristan.

_______________________________________________
Xen-ia64-devel mailing list
Xen-ia64-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-ia64-devel

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>