[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] Allow ACPI state change with active cpupools

  • To: Juergen Gross <juergen.gross@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • From: Keir Fraser <keir.xen@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2012 14:55:53 +0000
  • Cc: xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Delivery-date: Tue, 20 Mar 2012 14:56:16 +0000
  • List-id: Xen developer discussion <xen-devel.lists.xen.org>
  • Thread-index: Ac0GqYvm+6ipcn3aZkuFelXRVOFTDQ==
  • Thread-topic: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] Allow ACPI state change with active cpupools

On 20/03/2012 14:46, "Juergen Gross" <juergen.gross@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

>> Is it better to have cpupools know about offlining/suspend, or have
>> offlining/suspend know about cpupools? I would have thought the latter makes
>> more sense since it is offlining/suspend which calls into the cpupool
>> subsystem.
> I thought of a more relaxed solution in the cpupool coding:
> Instead of allowing to offline a cpu only if it is in Pool-0, I would allow it
> if:
> - the cpu is not the last one in the cpupool
> - or no domain is active in the cpupool (this would include the suspend case,
>    where all domains are paused)
> Together with your proposal to remember the cpupool for an offlined cpu to add
> it again when it is onlined the handling should be rather simple and local.

Ah, I see. Yes, a more flexible policy like this in the cpupool subsystem is
best solution of all, imo.

 -- Keir

Xen-devel mailing list



Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our
servers 24x7x365 and backed by RackSpace's Fanatical Support®.