[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20200720093705.GG7191@Air-de-Roger>
Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2020 11:37:05 +0200
From: Roger Pau Monné <roger.pau@...rix.com>
To: Boris Ostrovsky <boris.ostrovsky@...cle.com>
CC: Anchal Agarwal <anchalag@...zon.com>, <tglx@...utronix.de>,
<mingo@...hat.com>, <bp@...en8.de>, <hpa@...or.com>,
<x86@...nel.org>, <jgross@...e.com>, <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
<linux-mm@...ck.org>, <kamatam@...zon.com>,
<sstabellini@...nel.org>, <konrad.wilk@...cle.com>,
<axboe@...nel.dk>, <davem@...emloft.net>, <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
<len.brown@...el.com>, <pavel@....cz>, <peterz@...radead.org>,
<eduval@...zon.com>, <sblbir@...zon.com>,
<xen-devel@...ts.xenproject.org>, <vkuznets@...hat.com>,
<netdev@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
<dwmw@...zon.co.uk>, <benh@...nel.crashing.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 01/11] xen/manage: keep track of the on-going suspend
mode
On Sat, Jul 18, 2020 at 09:47:04PM -0400, Boris Ostrovsky wrote:
> (Roger, question for you at the very end)
>
> On 7/17/20 3:10 PM, Anchal Agarwal wrote:
> > On Wed, Jul 15, 2020 at 05:18:08PM -0400, Boris Ostrovsky wrote:
> >> CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you can confirm the sender and know the content is safe.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On 7/15/20 4:49 PM, Anchal Agarwal wrote:
> >>> On Mon, Jul 13, 2020 at 11:52:01AM -0400, Boris Ostrovsky wrote:
> >>>> CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you can confirm the sender and know the content is safe.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> On 7/2/20 2:21 PM, Anchal Agarwal wrote:
> >>>> And PVH dom0.
> >>> That's another good use case to make it work with however, I still
> >>> think that should be tested/worked upon separately as the feature itself
> >>> (PVH Dom0) is very new.
> >>
> >> Same question here --- will this break PVH dom0?
> >>
> > I haven't tested it as a part of this series. Is that a blocker here?
>
>
> I suspect dom0 will not do well now as far as hibernation goes, in which
> case you are not breaking anything.
>
>
> Roger?
I sadly don't have any box ATM that supports hibernation where I
could test it. We have hibernation support for PV dom0, so while I
haven't done anything specific to support or test hibernation on PVH
dom0 I would at least aim to not make this any worse, and hence the
check should at least also fail for a PVH dom0?
if (!xen_hvm_domain() || xen_initial_domain())
return -ENODEV;
Ie: none of this should be applied to a PVH dom0, as it doesn't have
PV devices and hence should follow the bare metal device suspend.
Also I would contact the QubesOS guys, they rely heavily on the
suspend feature for dom0, and that's something not currently tested by
osstest so any breakages there go unnoticed.
Thanks, Roger.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists