>>> On 27.03.19 at 17:18, <jgr...@suse.com> wrote: > On 27/03/2019 16:55, Andrew Cooper wrote: >> On 18/03/2019 13:11, Juergen Gross wrote: >>> Instead of freeing percpu areas during suspend and allocating them >>> again when resuming keep them. Only free an area in case a cpu didn't >>> come up again when resuming. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Juergen Gross <jgr...@suse.com> >> >> Hmm - this is slightly problematic, given the dual nature of this code. >> >> I agree that it this change is beneficial for the suspend case, but it >> is a problem when we are parking an individual CPU for smt=0 or >> xen-hptool reasons. >> >> Do we have any hint we can use when taking the CPU down as to whether >> we're expecting it to come straight back up again? > > Did you look into the patch? I did this by testing system_state.
I think there's a wider problem here: enable_nonboot_cpus() only brings back up the CPUs that were previously online. Parked ones would be left alone, yet after resume they'd need to be put back into parked state. Jan _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel
