From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Dave Hansen Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/4] Avoid soft lockup message when KVM is stopped by host Date: Wed, 21 Sep 2011 07:11:08 -0700 Message-ID: <1316614268.16137.280.camel@nimitz> References: <1314660435-23293-1-git-send-email-emunson@mgebm.net> <20110830122630.GA19450@amt.cnet> <4E5FDBDC.2030302@codemonkey.ws> <6c387b0ab0b091253c1a1488dd625b94@mgebm.net> <20110909132955.GA19459@amt.cnet> <20110913204955.GD9096@mgebm.net> <20110915132614.GA7101@amt.cnet> <20110920190054.GA31415@mgebm.net> <20110920195514.GD32325@amt.cnet> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20110920195514.GD32325@amt.cnet> Sender: kvm-ppc-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Marcelo Tosatti Cc: Eric B Munson , Anthony Liguori , avi@redhat.com, tglx@linutronix.de, mingo@redhat.com, hpa@zytor.com, arnd@arndb.de, riel@redhat.com, kvm@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, kvm-ppc@vger.kernel.org, aliguori@us.ibm.com, raharper@us.ibm.com, kvm-ia64@vger.kernel.org, Glauber Costa , mjwolf@us.ibm.com List-Id: linux-arch.vger.kernel.org On Tue, 2011-09-20 at 16:55 -0300, Marcelo Tosatti wrote: > > and the wall clock stays behind my host wall clock by the amount of > > time it took to resume. > > This is expected, similar to savevm/loadvm. That seems like pretty undesirable behavior to me. It's too bad that it does that with savevm/loadvm, but is it really behavior that we want to spread? -- Dave From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from e4.ny.us.ibm.com ([32.97.182.144]:40676 "EHLO e4.ny.us.ibm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750797Ab1IUOLX (ORCPT ); Wed, 21 Sep 2011 10:11:23 -0400 Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/4] Avoid soft lockup message when KVM is stopped by host From: Dave Hansen In-Reply-To: <20110920195514.GD32325@amt.cnet> References: <1314660435-23293-1-git-send-email-emunson@mgebm.net> <20110830122630.GA19450@amt.cnet> <4E5FDBDC.2030302@codemonkey.ws> <6c387b0ab0b091253c1a1488dd625b94@mgebm.net> <20110909132955.GA19459@amt.cnet> <20110913204955.GD9096@mgebm.net> <20110915132614.GA7101@amt.cnet> <20110920190054.GA31415@mgebm.net> <20110920195514.GD32325@amt.cnet> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Date: Wed, 21 Sep 2011 07:11:08 -0700 Message-ID: <1316614268.16137.280.camel@nimitz> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-arch-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: Marcelo Tosatti Cc: Eric B Munson , Anthony Liguori , avi@redhat.com, tglx@linutronix.de, mingo@redhat.com, hpa@zytor.com, arnd@arndb.de, riel@redhat.com, kvm@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, kvm-ppc@vger.kernel.org, aliguori@us.ibm.com, raharper@us.ibm.com, kvm-ia64@vger.kernel.org, Glauber Costa , mjwolf@us.ibm.com Message-ID: <20110921141108.gpTV7FmDMCpMH8ahYN6Q4BtG68KAuBNnWBv8XYibhn0@z> On Tue, 2011-09-20 at 16:55 -0300, Marcelo Tosatti wrote: > > and the wall clock stays behind my host wall clock by the amount of > > time it took to resume. > > This is expected, similar to savevm/loadvm. That seems like pretty undesirable behavior to me. It's too bad that it does that with savevm/loadvm, but is it really behavior that we want to spread? -- Dave