From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Keir Fraser Subject: Re: rendezvousing all physical CPUs Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2006 17:20:00 +0000 Message-ID: References: <13426df10611300912s675cc158j1eb593299ea41356@mail.gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <13426df10611300912s675cc158j1eb593299ea41356@mail.gmail.com> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com To: ron minnich , Keir Fraser Cc: xen-devel@lists.xensource.com, Jan Beulich List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org On 30/11/06 17:12, "ron minnich" wrote: >> How about providing the linear address of a chunk of dom0 code that Xen >> should run in ring 0 with CPUs in a particular configuration? We could >> provide flags to represent useful configurations: e.g., run on all CPUs >> atomicaly, run on CPU0 only and quiesce others, etc. > > I thought the goal of Jan's proposal was to have Dom0 take over this > kind of thing, not extend Xen to do it. So his idea of getting CPUs in > a known state, then letting Dom0 handle it, is different, is it not? > Does this really address his problem? Dom0 would provide the code in both cases. The CPUs would be in a known state in both cases. It's a question of which interface is cleaner and/or easier to implement. -- Keir