On Tue, Jul 21, 2020 at 10:30:18AM +0200, Roger Pau Monné wrote: > CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you can confirm the sender and know the content is safe. > > > > Marek: I'm adding you in case you could be able to give this a try and > make sure it doesn't break suspend for dom0. > > On Tue, Jul 21, 2020 at 12:17:36AM +0000, Anchal Agarwal wrote: > > On Mon, Jul 20, 2020 at 11:37:05AM +0200, Roger Pau Monné wrote: > > > CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you can confirm the sender and know the content is safe. > > > > > > > > > > > > On Sat, Jul 18, 2020 at 09:47:04PM -0400, Boris Ostrovsky wrote: > > > > (Roger, question for you at the very end) > > > > > > > > On 7/17/20 3:10 PM, Anchal Agarwal wrote: > > > > > On Wed, Jul 15, 2020 at 05:18:08PM -0400, Boris Ostrovsky wrote: > > > > >> CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you can confirm the sender and know the content is safe. > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> On 7/15/20 4:49 PM, Anchal Agarwal wrote: > > > > >>> On Mon, Jul 13, 2020 at 11:52:01AM -0400, Boris Ostrovsky wrote: > > > > >>>> CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you can confirm the sender and know the content is safe. > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> On 7/2/20 2:21 PM, Anchal Agarwal wrote: > > > > >>>> And PVH dom0. > > > > >>> That's another good use case to make it work with however, I still > > > > >>> think that should be tested/worked upon separately as the feature itself > > > > >>> (PVH Dom0) is very new. > > > > >> > > > > >> Same question here --- will this break PVH dom0? > > > > >> > > > > > I haven't tested it as a part of this series. Is that a blocker here? > > > > > > > > > > > > I suspect dom0 will not do well now as far as hibernation goes, in which > > > > case you are not breaking anything. > > > > > > > > > > > > Roger? > > > > > > I sadly don't have any box ATM that supports hibernation where I > > > could test it. We have hibernation support for PV dom0, so while I > > > haven't done anything specific to support or test hibernation on PVH > > > dom0 I would at least aim to not make this any worse, and hence the > > > check should at least also fail for a PVH dom0? > > > > > > if (!xen_hvm_domain() || xen_initial_domain()) > > > return -ENODEV; > > > > > > Ie: none of this should be applied to a PVH dom0, as it doesn't have > > > PV devices and hence should follow the bare metal device suspend. > > > > > So from what I understand you meant for any guest running on pvh dom0 should not > > hibernate if hibernation is triggered from within the guest or should they? > > Er no to both I think. What I meant is that a PVH dom0 should be able > to properly suspend, and we should make sure this work doesn't make > this any harder (or breaks it if it's currently working). > > Or at least that's how I understood the question raised by Boris. > > You are adding code to the generic suspend path that's also used by dom0 > in order to perform bare metal suspension. This is fine now for a PV > dom0 because the code is gated on xen_hvm_domain, but you should also > take into account that a PVH dom0 is considered a HVM domain, and > hence will get the notifier registered. > Ok that makes sense now. This is good to be safe, but my patch series is only to support domU hibernation, so I am not sure if this will affect pvh dom0. However, since I do not have a good way of testing sure I will add the check. Moreover, in Patch-0004, I do register suspend/resume syscore_ops specifically for domU hibernation only if its xen_hvm_domain. I don't see any reason that should not be registered for domU's running on pvh dom0. Those suspend/resume callbacks will only be invoked in case hibernation and will be skipped if generic suspend path is in progress. Do you see any issue with that? > > > Also I would contact the QubesOS guys, they rely heavily on the > > > suspend feature for dom0, and that's something not currently tested by > > > osstest so any breakages there go unnoticed. > > > > > Was this for me or Boris? If its the former then I have no idea how to? > > I've now added Marek. > > Roger. Anchal
