RE: [Xen-devel] poweroff in 3.2 and 3.3

["Tian, Kevin" <kevin.tian@xxxxxxxxx>]

>From: Keir Fraser [mailto:keir.fraser@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] 
>Sent: Thursday, November 20, 2008 4:01 PM
>
>On 20/11/08 02:39, "Tian, Kevin" <kevin.tian@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>> However I'm considering the point whether Xen can simply reject the
>> s3 request, when observing non-current vcpus still alive. Domain can
>> be in trouble if unaware of underlying sleep phase, such time keeping
>> and softlockup warning. More seriously, domain with passthrough
>> devices can't recover device state since it's even not 
>notified to save
>> context. Opinions?
>
>What would you warn on?
> - VCPUs still exist?
> - VCPUs still online?
> - VCPUs not paused?
> - VCPUs not 'paused_by_system_controller'?

warn on unpaused domains and online dom0 vcpus.

>
>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.

Thanks,
Kevin
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel