From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Keir Fraser Subject: Re: poweroff in 3.2 and 3.3 Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2008 08:16:41 +0000 Message-ID: References: <0A882F4D99BBF6449D58E61AAFD7EDD601E23B49@pdsmsx502.ccr.corp.intel.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <0A882F4D99BBF6449D58E61AAFD7EDD601E23B49@pdsmsx502.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: "Tian, Kevin" , Jan Beulich , "xen-devel@lists.xensource.com" List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org On 20/11/08 08:11, "Tian, Kevin" wrote: >> I'm not sure what the WARN_ON() condition would be. A forceful >> domain_pause()/vcpu_pause() is a good idea anyway. >> >> -- Keir > > I'm pretty sure that domains will be busy catching up missing ticks > and throw warnings after system is waken up. Why should Xen > continue the progress even when we're aware the fact that something > will be hurted if doing so? Return a error with warning thrown out at > least let user know current condition inapproriate for s3 (e.g. some > incautious action) who can turn back to normal flow then. This is like > normal OS suspend flow which simply exits if some checks fail. If Xen itself itself is now robust to VCPUs still being runnable/running then I'm fine with warnings only. If Xen isn't, then forceful pausing is still needed (perhaps with some warnings in addition). -- Keir