From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Keir Fraser <keir.fraser@eu.citrix.com>
Subject: Re: poweroff in 3.2 and 3.3
Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2008 08:00:50 +0000
Message-ID: <C54AC9B2.1F6CE%keir.fraser@eu.citrix.com>
References: <0A882F4D99BBF6449D58E61AAFD7EDD601E23B3F@pdsmsx502.ccr.corp.intel.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Return-path: <xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com>
In-Reply-To: <0A882F4D99BBF6449D58E61AAFD7EDD601E23B3F@pdsmsx502.ccr.corp.intel.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.xensource.com/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>,
	<mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:xen-devel@lists.xensource.com>
List-Help: <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.xensource.com/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>,
	<mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=subscribe>
Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com
Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com
To: "Tian, Kevin" <kevin.tian@intel.com>, Jan Beulich <jbeulich@novell.com>, "xen-devel@lists.xensource.com" <xen-devel@lists.xensource.com>
List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org

On 20/11/08 02:39, "Tian, Kevin" <kevin.tian@intel.com> wrote:

> However I'm considering the point whether Xen can simply reject the
> s3 request, when observing non-current vcpus still alive. Domain can
> be in trouble if unaware of underlying sleep phase, such time keeping
> and softlockup warning. More seriously, domain with passthrough
> devices can't recover device state since it's even not notified to save
> context. Opinions?

What would you warn on?
 - VCPUs still exist?
 - VCPUs still online?
 - VCPUs not paused?
 - VCPUs not 'paused_by_system_controller'?

I'm not sure what the WARN_ON() condition would be. A forceful
domain_pause()/vcpu_pause() is a good idea anyway.

 -- Keir