On 12/11/2018 19:56, Julien Grall wrote: > Hi Andrew, > > On 11/12/18 4:41 PM, Andrew Cooper wrote: >> On 12/11/18 16:35, Mirela Simonovic wrote: >>>>> diff --git a/xen/arch/arm/domain.c b/xen/arch/arm/domain.c >>>>> index e594b48d81..7f8105465c 100644 >>>>> --- a/xen/arch/arm/domain.c >>>>> +++ b/xen/arch/arm/domain.c >>>>> @@ -97,6 +97,11 @@ static void ctxt_switch_from(struct vcpu *p) >>>>> if ( is_idle_vcpu(p) ) >>>>> return; >>>>> >>>>> + /* VCPU's context should not be saved if its domain is >>>>> suspended */ >>>>> + if ( p->domain->is_shut_down && >>>>> + (p->domain->shutdown_code == SHUTDOWN_suspend) ) >>>>> + return; >>>> SHUTDOWN_suspend is used in Xen for other purpose (see >>>> SCHEDOP_shutdown). The other user of that code relies on all the state >>>> to be saved on suspend. >>>> >>> We just need a flag to mark a domain as suspended, and I do believe >>> SHUTDOWN_suspend is not used anywhere else. >>> Let's come back on this. >> >> SHUTDOWN_suspend is used for migration. Grep for it through the Xen >> tree and you'll find several pieces of documentation, including the >> description of what this shutdown code means. >> >> What you are introducing here is not a shutdown - it is a suspend with >> the intent to resume executing later. As such, it shouldn't use Xen's >> shutdown infrastructure, which exists mainly to communicate with the >> toolstack. > > Would domain pause/unpause be a better solution?
Actually yes - that sounds like a very neat solution. ~Andrew _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel
