[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [PATCH v6 11/13] xen/arm: Add support for system suspend triggered by hardware domain
- To: Mykola Kvach <xakep.amatop@xxxxxxxxx>
- From: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@xxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 9 Sep 2025 13:48:21 +0200
- Autocrypt: addr=jbeulich@xxxxxxxx; keydata= xsDiBFk3nEQRBADAEaSw6zC/EJkiwGPXbWtPxl2xCdSoeepS07jW8UgcHNurfHvUzogEq5xk hu507c3BarVjyWCJOylMNR98Yd8VqD9UfmX0Hb8/BrA+Hl6/DB/eqGptrf4BSRwcZQM32aZK 7Pj2XbGWIUrZrd70x1eAP9QE3P79Y2oLrsCgbZJfEwCgvz9JjGmQqQkRiTVzlZVCJYcyGGsD /0tbFCzD2h20ahe8rC1gbb3K3qk+LpBtvjBu1RY9drYk0NymiGbJWZgab6t1jM7sk2vuf0Py O9Hf9XBmK0uE9IgMaiCpc32XV9oASz6UJebwkX+zF2jG5I1BfnO9g7KlotcA/v5ClMjgo6Gl MDY4HxoSRu3i1cqqSDtVlt+AOVBJBACrZcnHAUSuCXBPy0jOlBhxPqRWv6ND4c9PH1xjQ3NP nxJuMBS8rnNg22uyfAgmBKNLpLgAGVRMZGaGoJObGf72s6TeIqKJo/LtggAS9qAUiuKVnygo 3wjfkS9A3DRO+SpU7JqWdsveeIQyeyEJ/8PTowmSQLakF+3fote9ybzd880fSmFuIEJldWxp Y2ggPGpiZXVsaWNoQHN1c2UuY29tPsJgBBMRAgAgBQJZN5xEAhsDBgsJCAcDAgQVAggDBBYC AwECHgECF4AACgkQoDSui/t3IH4J+wCfQ5jHdEjCRHj23O/5ttg9r9OIruwAn3103WUITZee e7Sbg12UgcQ5lv7SzsFNBFk3nEQQCACCuTjCjFOUdi5Nm244F+78kLghRcin/awv+IrTcIWF hUpSs1Y91iQQ7KItirz5uwCPlwejSJDQJLIS+QtJHaXDXeV6NI0Uef1hP20+y8qydDiVkv6l IreXjTb7DvksRgJNvCkWtYnlS3mYvQ9NzS9PhyALWbXnH6sIJd2O9lKS1Mrfq+y0IXCP10eS FFGg+Av3IQeFatkJAyju0PPthyTqxSI4lZYuJVPknzgaeuJv/2NccrPvmeDg6Coe7ZIeQ8Yj t0ARxu2xytAkkLCel1Lz1WLmwLstV30g80nkgZf/wr+/BXJW/oIvRlonUkxv+IbBM3dX2OV8 AmRv1ySWPTP7AAMFB/9PQK/VtlNUJvg8GXj9ootzrteGfVZVVT4XBJkfwBcpC/XcPzldjv+3 HYudvpdNK3lLujXeA5fLOH+Z/G9WBc5pFVSMocI71I8bT8lIAzreg0WvkWg5V2WZsUMlnDL9 mpwIGFhlbM3gfDMs7MPMu8YQRFVdUvtSpaAs8OFfGQ0ia3LGZcjA6Ik2+xcqscEJzNH+qh8V m5jjp28yZgaqTaRbg3M/+MTbMpicpZuqF4rnB0AQD12/3BNWDR6bmh+EkYSMcEIpQmBM51qM EKYTQGybRCjpnKHGOxG0rfFY1085mBDZCH5Kx0cl0HVJuQKC+dV2ZY5AqjcKwAxpE75MLFkr wkkEGBECAAkFAlk3nEQCGwwACgkQoDSui/t3IH7nnwCfcJWUDUFKdCsBH/E5d+0ZnMQi+G0A nAuWpQkjM1ASeQwSHEeAWPgskBQL
- Cc: Stefano Stabellini <sstabellini@xxxxxxxxxx>, Julien Grall <julien@xxxxxxx>, Bertrand Marquis <bertrand.marquis@xxxxxxx>, Michal Orzel <michal.orzel@xxxxxxx>, Volodymyr Babchuk <Volodymyr_Babchuk@xxxxxxxx>, Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@xxxxxxxxxx>, Anthony PERARD <anthony.perard@xxxxxxxxxx>, Roger Pau Monné <roger.pau@xxxxxxxxxx>, Saeed Nowshadi <saeed.nowshadi@xxxxxxxxxx>, Mykyta Poturai <mykyta_poturai@xxxxxxxx>, Mykola Kvach <mykola_kvach@xxxxxxxx>, xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Delivery-date: Tue, 09 Sep 2025 11:48:29 +0000
- List-id: Xen developer discussion <xen-devel.lists.xenproject.org>
On 09.09.2025 11:55, Mykola Kvach wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 9, 2025 at 12:14 PM Jan Beulich <jbeulich@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> On 09.09.2025 10:14, Mykola Kvach wrote:
>>> On Tue, Sep 9, 2025 at 9:57 AM Jan Beulich <jbeulich@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>> Furthermore with continuing to (ab)use domain_shutdown() also for the
>>>> suspend case (Dom0 isn't really shut down when suspending, aiui), you
>>>> retain the widening of the issue with the bogus setting of
>>>> d->is_shutting_down (and hence the need for later clearing the flag
>>>> again) that I mentioned elsewhere. (Yes, I remain of the opinion that
>>>> you don't need to sort that as a prereq to your work, yet at the same
>>>> time I think the goal should be to at least not make a bad situation
>>>> worse.)
>>>
>>> From the perspective of ARM logic inside Xen, we perform the exact same
>>> shutdown steps as for other domains, except that in the end we need to
>>> call Xen suspend.
>>
>> Which, as said, feels wrong. Domains to be revived after resume aren't
>> really shut down, so imo they should never have ->is_shutting_down set.
>
> I believe this is out of scope for this series;
Yes, but see at the bottom.
> actually, the same applies to shutdown_code.
Not quite sure there.
>>> The is_shutting_down flag is easily reset on Xen resume via a
>>> domain_resume call, so I don’t see any problems with that.
>>
>> You did read my earlier mail though, regarding concerns towards the clearing
>> of that flag once it was set? (You must have, since iirc you even asked [1]
>> whether you're expected to address those issues up front.)
>
> As far as I understand, this issue is relevant to x86, and I believe
> it is out of scope for this series.
Yes and ...
> See my previous message here:
> https://lists.xen.org/archives/html/xen-devel/2025-08/msg02127.html
>
> I will prepare a separate patch series to address it.
... thanks. My request to not extend the badness remains though, as to the
series here.
Jan
|