From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Jan Beulich" Subject: Re: poweroff in 3.2 and 3.3 Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2008 08:30:37 +0000 Message-ID: <49252E3D.76E4.0078.0@novell.com> References: <49252B4B.76E4.0078.0@novell.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Return-path: In-Reply-To: Content-Disposition: inline List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com To: Keir Fraser , Kevin Tian Cc: "xen-devel@lists.xensource.com" List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org >>> Keir Fraser 20.11.08 09:18 >>> >On 20/11/08 08:18, "Jan Beulich" wrote: > >>> Comment says "Only s3 is using this path", instead of "this path >>> can only be used by s3". :-) At that time cpu online/offline is not >>> supported and thus only s3 is the user on that path. If you look at >>> latest xen upstream with cpu offline support, that comment went >>> away. >>=20 >> But my point is that this is wrong (no matter how it's worded): = entering >> S5 also uses this path, and in that case there's nothing that stops >> non-current vCPU-s of dom0. > >If you're powering off, why does it matter if VCPUs are paused or not? Because they can prevent the idle vCPU-s from being entered as needed in order to fully bring down pCPU-s. This is what a customer is reporting (on 3.2), prompting the start of this mail thread. And I've too seen occasional problems with pCPU-s going down prior to power off, just not as bad as they do (where things end up in a panic). Jan