On (Thu) 15 Dec 2011 [13:55:15], Avi Kivity wrote: > On 12/08/2011 01:34 PM, Amit Shah wrote: > > On (Mon) 05 Dec 2011 [15:18:59], Eric B Munson wrote: > > > When a guest kernel is stopped by the host hypervisor it can look like a soft > > > lockup to the guest kernel. This false warning can mask later soft lockup > > > warnings which may be real. This patch series adds a method for a host > > > hypervisor to communicate to a guest kernel that it is being stopped. The > > > final patch in the series has the watchdog check this flag when it goes to > > > issue a soft lockup warning and skip the warning if the guest knows it was > > > stopped. > > > > Guest S4 would need similar treatment, and I think the code in the two > > approaches can be shared. Just something to consider. > > > > Why does S4 need any treatment? The guest is aware that it's sleeping, > unlike the other cases treated here. Er, right. S4 needs some treatment, though, as resume after s4 doesn't work with kvmclock enabled. I didn't realise this series was only handling the soft lockup case. Amit -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
