On 12/19/2011 02:52 PM, Amit Shah wrote: > 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. > What's the issue there? -- error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function -- 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
