From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk Subject: Re: [PATCH 6 of 6] PV on HVM suspend\resume Date: Tue, 27 Apr 2010 09:50:15 -0400 Message-ID: <20100427135015.GA23625@phenom.dumpdata.com> References: <4BD22888.1060305@goop.org> <4BD5E36F.80204@goop.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com To: Stefano Stabellini Cc: Ian Campbell , Jeremy Fitzhardinge , "xen-devel@lists.xensource.com" List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org On Tue, Apr 27, 2010 at 06:08:35AM +0100, Stefano Stabellini wrote: > On Mon, 26 Apr 2010, Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote: > > On 04/25/2010 04:25 PM, Stefano Stabellini wrote: > > >> This won't compile with CONFIG_PREEMPT enabled, because out_destroy_sm > > >> is missing below. > > >> > > >> > > > > > > Now it is fixed, > > > > Did you push out the fix (ideally as a new delta changeset on top of the > > previous ones, rather than rebaseing them). > > > > Yes but this time I rebased them; next time I'll keep the fix separated. > > > > > > however I tried suspend/resume with CONFIG_PREEMPT > > > enabled and the kernel seems to hang at resume time; I wonder if it > > > works for pv guests since the suspend/resume code is similiar... > > > > > > > I think Pasi and IanC tested it quite a bit not too long ago, but its > > possible they didn't test preempt kernels (and it wouldn't surprise me > > at all if preempt breaks things). > > > > all right, more debugging required here... FYI. The Documents/SubmitChecklist mentions: 12: Has been tested with CONFIG_PREEMPT, CONFIG_DEBUG_PREEMPT, CONFIG_DEBUG_SLAB, CONFIG_DEBUG_PAGEALLOC, CONFIG_DEBUG_MUTEXES, CONFIG_DEBUG_SPINLOCK, CONFIG_DEBUG_SPINLOCK_SLEEP all simultaneously enabled. amongs other things..