[lkml]   [2012]   [Mar]   [29]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRE: [Xen-devel] [PATCH 1/2] RFC: Prepare PAD for native and xen platform
    Liu, Jinsong wrote:
    > Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
    >>>> Compare approaches:
    >>>> 1. xen overwritten approach (patches V2, x86_init, osl approach)
    >>>> Pros: a little simpler code
    >>>> Cons:
    >>>> 1). specific to xen, cannot extend to other virt platform;
    >>>> 2). need to change natvie acpi_pad as modular;
    >>>> 2. paravirt interface approach (original patches V1) Pros:
    >>>> 1). standard hypervisor-agnostic interface (USENIX
    >>>> conference 2006), can easily hook to Xen/lguest/... on
    >>>> demand; 2). arch independent; 3). no need to change native
    >>>> acpi_pad as non-modular; Cons: a little complicated
    >>>> code, and code patching is some
    >>>> overkilled for this case (but no harm);
    >>>> (BTW, in the future we need add more and more pv ops, like
    >>>> pv_pm_ops, pv_cpu_hotplug_ops, pv_mem_hotplug_ops, etc. So how
    >>>> about add a pv_misc_ops template to handle them all? seems it's a
    >>>> common issue).
    >> I think (and you probabaly have a better idea) is that the maintainer
    >> of drivers/acpi/* is not very open to adding in code that only
    >> benefits Xen.
    > Take paravirt interface approach as example. We only change a little
    > about native acpi_pad_init/acpi_pad_exit, intercept it and
    > *implicitly* hook to native/paravirt platform (it didn't appear any
    > 'xen' 'pv' word in native pad logic). This is what I can find out the
    > least change to native pad logic, and it in fact benefits
    > (extensiable) to all pv. If this is still not acceptable we have to
    > find other way (but I'm not sure) :-)
    >> If it benefits other architectures (say ARM) then adding in hooks
    >> there (in osl for example) makes sense - but I am not sure if ARM
    >> has a form of _PUR code/calls it needs to do.
    >> So with that in mind, neither of those options seems proper - as all
    >> of them depend on changing something in drivers/acpi/*.
    >> I've one or two suggestions of what could be done to still make this
    >> work, but I need you to first see what happens if the native acpi_pad
    >> runs under Xen with the latest upstream code (along with three
    >> patches that are in a BZ I pointed you too).
    > Do you mean test the patch
    > ?

    Ah, you want to test
    Anyway, I didn't have proper h/w platform, but seems the bug (ioapic) is irrelated to pad thread we are talking?


     \ /
      Last update: 2012-03-29 09:31    [W:0.026 / U:1.248 seconds]
    ©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site