From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Ben Guthro Subject: Re: Xen4.2 S3 regression? Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2012 10:26:10 -0400 Message-ID: <7838417303277258895@unknownmsgid> References: <20120924140411.GH31618@phenom.dumpdata.com> <20120925140611.GB16478@phenom.dumpdata.com> <5061E800020000780009DBBA@nat28.tlf.novell.com> <5062C81D020000780009DE2E@nat28.tlf.novell.com> <20120926124335.GG7356@phenom.dumpdata.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0) Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============7173399404261529213==" Return-path: In-Reply-To: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org To: Javier Marcet Cc: Keir Fraser , "john.baboval@citrix.com" , Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk , xen-devel , Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk , Ben Guthro , Jan Beulich , Thomas Goetz List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org --===============7173399404261529213== Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=e89a8f2349cbcd8c9d04ca9b9a90 --e89a8f2349cbcd8c9d04ca9b9a90 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Yes. Pvops PV dom0 kernel. It is really more appropriate to start a new thread, than having 2 disparate conversations in this one. It makes it confusing to follow. On Sep 26, 2012, at 10:15 AM, Javier Marcet wrote: On Wed, Sep 26, 2012 at 2:43 PM, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote: > >> Adding the additional call in xen/arch/x86/acpi/cpu_idle.c causes an > > >> instant reboot on resume. > > > > > > That addition can hardly be responsible for a reboot. Did you > > > > Just like I could perform a full cycle without issues, the instant > > reboot might as well be another way the race ends. > > > > > have "noreboot" (or "reboot=no") in place on the Xen command > > > line? "sync_console"? > > > > Neither of them. I have used the sync_console parameter to check > > whether it changed anything but I removed it afterwards. > > > > > And then again, for the other failure case, iirc it was the kernel > > > that died, not the hypervisor, so the problem there isn't directly > > > related to the problems here I would guess. > > > > All I know is that I'm using that same kernel without hypervisor, with > > lots of suspend/resume and not a single issue. > > > > With the two kernel patches from Konrad added I can also suspend and > > resume fine under the hypervisor but there is always a cpu which > > receives an irq while offline. > > And that error you get - can you reproduce it without going to > suspend/resume? Meaning if you offline/online a VCPU in the > guest by manipulating the /sys/../cpuX/online attribute? > > And actually - we should move that discussion to a completlty different > thread as it has nothing to do with the hypervisor. That is a PV kernel > issue. > Konrad, this is on a dom0 with no guest running. -- Javier Marcet --e89a8f2349cbcd8c9d04ca9b9a90 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Yes. Pvops PV dom0 kernel.=A0

It is really more appropriate to start a new thread, t= han having 2 disparate conversations in this one. It makes it confusing to = follow.=A0

On Sep 26, 2012, at 10:15 AM, Javier Marcet <jmarcet@gmail.com> wrote:

On Wed, Sep 26, 2012 at 2:43 PM,= Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad@kernel.org> wrote:

>= >> Adding the additional call in xen/arch/x86/acpi/cpu_idle.c causes= an
> >> instant reboot on resume.
> >
> > That addition can hardly be responsible for a reboot. Did you
>
> Just like I could perform a full cycle without issues, the instant
> reboot might as well be another way the race ends.
>
> > have "noreboot" (or "reboot=3Dno") in place o= n the Xen command
> > line? "sync_console"?
>
> Neither of them. I have used the sync_console parameter to check
> whether it changed anything but I removed it afterwards.
>
> > And then again, for the other failure case, iirc it was the kerne= l
> > that died, not the hypervisor, so the problem there isn't dir= ectly
> > related to the problems here I would guess.
>
> All I know is that I'm using that same kernel without hypervisor, = with
> lots of suspend/resume and not a single issue.
>
> With the two kernel patches from Konrad added I can also suspend and > resume fine under the hypervisor but there is always a cpu which
> receives an irq while offline.

And that error you get - can you reproduce it without going to<= br> suspend/resume? Meaning if you offline/online a VCPU in the
guest by manipulating the /sys/../cpuX/online attribute?

And actually - we should move that discussion to a completlty different
thread as it has nothing to do with the hypervisor. That is a PV kernel
issue.

Konrad, this is on a dom0 with no guest r= unning.


--
Javier Marcet <jmarcet@gmail.com><= br>
--e89a8f2349cbcd8c9d04ca9b9a90-- --===============7173399404261529213== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xen.org http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel --===============7173399404261529213==--