[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20111219125217.GC3139@amit-x200.redhat.com>
Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2011 18:22:17 +0530
From: Amit Shah <amit.shah@...hat.com>
To: Avi Kivity <avi@...hat.com>
Cc: Eric B Munson <emunson@...bm.net>, mingo@...hat.com, hpa@...or.com,
arnd@...db.de, ryanh@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, aliguori@...ibm.com,
mtosatti@...hat.com, jeremy.fitzhardinge@...rix.com,
levinsasha928@...il.com, Jan Kiszka <jan.kiszka@...mens.com>,
kvm@...r.kernel.org, linux-arch@...r.kernel.org, x86@...nel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/5 V5] Avoid soft lockup message when KVM is stopped by
host
On (Thu) 15 Dec 2011 [13:55:15], Avi Kivity wrote:
> On 12/08/2011 01:34 PM, Amit Shah wrote:
> > On (Mon) 05 Dec 2011 [15:18:59], Eric B Munson wrote:
> > > When a guest kernel is stopped by the host hypervisor it can look like a soft
> > > lockup to the guest kernel. This false warning can mask later soft lockup
> > > warnings which may be real. This patch series adds a method for a host
> > > hypervisor to communicate to a guest kernel that it is being stopped. The
> > > final patch in the series has the watchdog check this flag when it goes to
> > > issue a soft lockup warning and skip the warning if the guest knows it was
> > > stopped.
> >
> > Guest S4 would need similar treatment, and I think the code in the two
> > approaches can be shared. Just something to consider.
> >
>
> Why does S4 need any treatment? The guest is aware that it's sleeping,
> unlike the other cases treated here.
Er, right.
S4 needs some treatment, though, as resume after s4 doesn't work with
kvmclock enabled. I didn't realise this series was only handling the
soft lockup case.
Amit
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists