From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Avi Kivity Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/5 V5] Avoid soft lockup message when KVM is stopped by host Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2011 14:59:36 +0200 Message-ID: <4EEF3538.9060808@redhat.com> References: <1323116344-17911-1-git-send-email-emunson@mgebm.net> <20111208113422.GA27919@amit-x200.redhat.com> <4EE9E023.4000904@redhat.com> <20111219125217.GC3139@amit-x200.redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Eric B Munson , mingo@redhat.com, hpa@zytor.com, arnd@arndb.de, ryanh@linux.vnet.ibm.com, aliguori@us.ibm.com, mtosatti@redhat.com, jeremy.fitzhardinge@citrix.com, levinsasha928@gmail.com, Jan Kiszka , kvm@vger.kernel.org, linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, x86@kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org To: Amit Shah Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20111219125217.GC3139@amit-x200.redhat.com> Sender: linux-arch-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: kvm.vger.kernel.org On 12/19/2011 02:52 PM, Amit Shah wrote: > On (Thu) 15 Dec 2011 [13:55:15], Avi Kivity wrote: > > On 12/08/2011 01:34 PM, Amit Shah wrote: > > > On (Mon) 05 Dec 2011 [15:18:59], Eric B Munson wrote: > > > > When a guest kernel is stopped by the host hypervisor it can look like a soft > > > > lockup to the guest kernel. This false warning can mask later soft lockup > > > > warnings which may be real. This patch series adds a method for a host > > > > hypervisor to communicate to a guest kernel that it is being stopped. The > > > > final patch in the series has the watchdog check this flag when it goes to > > > > issue a soft lockup warning and skip the warning if the guest knows it was > > > > stopped. > > > > > > Guest S4 would need similar treatment, and I think the code in the two > > > approaches can be shared. Just something to consider. > > > > > > > Why does S4 need any treatment? The guest is aware that it's sleeping, > > unlike the other cases treated here. > > Er, right. > > S4 needs some treatment, though, as resume after s4 doesn't work with > kvmclock enabled. I didn't realise this series was only handling the > soft lockup case. > What's the issue there? -- error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function