Re: CVS commit: src/sys/arch
On 20.09.2011 02:12, Jean-Yves Migeon wrote: Module Name:src Committed By: jym Date: Tue Sep 20 00:12:25 UTC 2011 Modified Files: [snip] Log Message: Merge jym-xensuspend branch in -current. ok bouyer@. Goal: save/restore support in NetBSD domUs, for i386, i386 PAE and amd64. [snip] XXX PAE suspend does not work in amd64 currently, due to (yet again!) page validation issues with hypervisor. Will fix. Got it, pool cache invalidation is not working as expected during save. I remember discussing this matter with Mindaugas a while back, and due to pool_cache(9) limitations back then the code was commented out (see the #if 0 ... #endif part in pool_cache_invalidate). I had to implement a pool_cache_invalidate_local(), but this wasn't technically appreciated by many as it made pool_cache abstraction leaky (and they were right) I'll discuss this matter again, I think I have an alternative solution for that one. I may hit a pmf(9) limitation though :/ Anyway, for the reckless people that already tried my code and reported breaks: yes, I am aware of that specific issue :) -- Jean-Yves Migeon jeanyves.mig...@free.fr
Re: CVS commit: src/sys/arch
On Sep 20, 2011, at 3:00 PM, Jean-Yves Migeon wrote: On 20.09.2011 02:12, Jean-Yves Migeon wrote: Module Name: src Committed By:jym Date:Tue Sep 20 00:12:25 UTC 2011 Modified Files: [snip] Log Message: Merge jym-xensuspend branch in -current. ok bouyer@. Goal: save/restore support in NetBSD domUs, for i386, i386 PAE and amd64. [snip] XXX PAE suspend does not work in amd64 currently, due to (yet again!) page validation issues with hypervisor. Will fix. Got it, pool cache invalidation is not working as expected during save. I remember discussing this matter with Mindaugas a while back, and due to pool_cache(9) limitations back then the code was commented out (see the #if 0 ... #endif part in pool_cache_invalidate). I had to implement a pool_cache_invalidate_local(), but this wasn't technically appreciated by many as it made pool_cache abstraction leaky (and they were right) I'll discuss this matter again, I think I have an alternative solution for that one. I may hit a pmf(9) limitation though :/ Maybe add pmf hook for cpu device_t in mi_cpu_attach
