From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Keir Fraser Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/4] HVM Virtual S3 Date: Thu, 15 May 2008 08:33:59 +0100 Message-ID: References: <391BF3CDD2DC0848B40ACB72FA97AD59035AADD9@pdsmsx413.ccr.corp.intel.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <391BF3CDD2DC0848B40ACB72FA97AD59035AADD9@pdsmsx413.ccr.corp.intel.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: "Ke, Liping" , Ian Pratt , "Yu, Ke" , xen-devel@lists.xensource.com Cc: "Tian, Kevin" , "Jiang, Yunhong" List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org On 15/5/08 02:31, "Ke, Liping" wrote: >> I think pause/unpause still makes sense. Obviously a paused and >> s3suspended guest will not run again until both s3 resumed and >> unpaused. As for suspend/resume, that should also just work I think? >> Isn't the point to be able to s3-suspend then save then restore then >> s3-resume? >> > Yes, now S3 could works with save/restore. Since suspend/resume has > Similar mechanism with save/restore, it works. I just thought > s3_suspend/resume > is a kind of suspend/resume already? > As for pause/unpause, since after s3_supend is now already in pause state, > I just thought is it a little interleaving? If you like, I will make it work > firstly. The 'pause' state visible to tools is a specific type of domain_pause(), and *has* to be entered via the pause domctl hypercall. So don't worry -- your new type of pause should stack on top of 'xm pause/unpause' no problem. -- Keir