[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH 02/18] xen/arm: Implement PSCI system suspend call (virtual interface)

Hi Julien,

On 11/14/2018 11:45 AM, Julien Grall wrote:

On 13/11/2018 20:39, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
On Mon, 12 Nov 2018, Julien Grall wrote:
However, what is the issue with saving all the registers here?

We need to save arguments that are provided by a guest with system
suspend PSCI call. These arguments are the entry point that needs to
be saved in program counter and context ID that needs to be saved in
x0/r0. We don't have these arguments here. Context switch happens
after processing the system suspend PSCI call, so it's too late.

It does not feel right to modify ctxt_switch{from,to} for suspend/resume. If you want to reset the vCPU state before blocking the vCPU, then you should

I think it's not clear what problem are we discussing here, at least it's not to me. So I'll make an assumption, and please correct me if I'm wrong. In the patches we submitted, the VCPU context is not reset in ctxt_switch{from,to}. My understanding is that you suggested/asked to reset the VCPU context when switch happens, and I explained why is that not possible - at least not without additional code changes, that may not be so small. I agree with Andrew's comment in this perspective - reset of VCPU should not (and right now cannot) be done when the context is switched.

You missed the end of the suggestion here

Whoops. I meant that instead you should save the context of the vCPU in advance or reset the vCPU using the system registers directly.

But my preference is to reset the vCPU when you receive the wake-up interrupt.

Without you presenting more details how would that work I cannot really provide any comment, nor say that your preference could work or be better compared to what is in this series. Honestly, I don't understand what exactly you're proposing, because more things needs to be think-through beyond the place to put a code. We submitted a code that works, which is very elegant and nice in my opinion (fair to say we may not share opinions here), and does not require lots of code changes. So there's the reference.
Could you please clarify why do you think the proposed solution is not good?
And why do you think that what you're proposing is better? Lets be more clear here - how exactly you propose to implement that?

I haven't understood so far why do you think that the proposed approach is not good. Maybe the whole discussion drifted a bit for no reason.



Xen-devel mailing list



Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our
servers 24x7x365 and backed by RackSpace's Fanatical Support®.