Re: [Xen-devel] HVMlite ABI specification DRAFT B + implementation outline

["Jan Beulich" <JBeulich@xxxxxxxx>]

>>> On 09.02.16 at 16:06, <stefano.stabellini@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Tue, 9 Feb 2016, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> Will STAO be sufficient for everything that may need customization?
>> I'm particularly worried about processor related methods in DSDT or
>> SSDT, which - if we're really meaning to do as you say - would need
>> to be limited (or extended) to the number of vCPU-s Dom0 gets.
>> What's even less clear to me is how you mean to deal with P-, C-,
>> and (once supported) T-state management for CPUs which don't
>> have a vCPU equivalent in Dom0.
> 
> It is possible to use the STAO to hide entire objects, including
> processors, from the DSDT, which should be good enough to prevent dom0
> from calling any of the processor related methods you are referreing to.
> Then we can let Xen do cpuidle and cpufreq as it is already doing.
> 
> Would that work? Or do we still need Dom0 to call any ACPI methods for
> power management?

We want two things at once here, which afaict can't possibly work:
On one hand we want Dom0 to only see ACPI objects corresponding
to its own vCPU-s. Otoh we need Dom0 to see all objects, in order
to propagate respective information to Xen.

Jan


_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel