On Fri, 2007-02-16 at 02:19 -0800, Zachary Amsden wrote:
> Doesn't stop_machine_run already take care of getting you out of all
> kernel threads? So you can only be sleeping, not preempted, in which
> case, this might not be an issue?
No, stop_machine only protects against preempt-disabled
Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> Have machine_kexec_prepare fail.
>
> I think your machine description or paravirt_ops or whatever it is needs
> to hook both machine_kexec_prepare and machine_kexec.
>
> I know there actually has been some work to get kexec actually working under
> Xen but I don't know
Keir Fraser wrote:
On 16/2/07 10:19, "Zachary Amsden" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Doesn't stop_machine_run already take care of getting you out of all
kernel threads? So you can only be sleeping, not preempted, in which
case, this might not be an issue?
It ensures that no
On 16/2/07 10:19, "Zachary Amsden" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Doesn't stop_machine_run already take care of getting you out of all
> kernel threads? So you can only be sleeping, not preempted, in which
> case, this might not be an issue?
It ensures that no (non-stopmachine) threads are
Keir Fraser wrote:
On 16/2/07 07:25, "Jeremy Fitzhardinge" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Oh, so that's why it doesn't break when CONFIG_PREEMPT=y. In which case
that preempt_disable() I spotted is wrong-and-unneeded.
Why doesn't Xen work with preemption??
I've forgotten the details.
Keir Fraser wrote:
On 16/2/07 07:25, Jeremy Fitzhardinge [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Oh, so that's why it doesn't break when CONFIG_PREEMPT=y. In which case
that preempt_disable() I spotted is wrong-and-unneeded.
Why doesn't Xen work with preemption??
I've forgotten the details.
On 16/2/07 10:19, Zachary Amsden [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Doesn't stop_machine_run already take care of getting you out of all
kernel threads? So you can only be sleeping, not preempted, in which
case, this might not be an issue?
It ensures that no (non-stopmachine) threads are running on
Keir Fraser wrote:
On 16/2/07 10:19, Zachary Amsden [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Doesn't stop_machine_run already take care of getting you out of all
kernel threads? So you can only be sleeping, not preempted, in which
case, this might not be an issue?
It ensures that no
Eric W. Biederman wrote:
Have machine_kexec_prepare fail.
I think your machine description or paravirt_ops or whatever it is needs
to hook both machine_kexec_prepare and machine_kexec.
I know there actually has been some work to get kexec actually working under
Xen but I don't know where
On Fri, 2007-02-16 at 02:19 -0800, Zachary Amsden wrote:
Doesn't stop_machine_run already take care of getting you out of all
kernel threads? So you can only be sleeping, not preempted, in which
case, this might not be an issue?
No, stop_machine only protects against preempt-disabled
Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote:
Dan Hecht wrote:
I assume you plan to eventually get all this stuff working but just
want to prevent configurations that the Xen paravirt-ops isn't ready
for at the moment?
Instead can you do it this way:
config XEN
depends on PARAVIRT && !PREEMPT && HZ_100
Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote:
Dan Hecht wrote:
I assume you plan to eventually get all this stuff working but just
want to prevent configurations that the Xen paravirt-ops isn't ready
for at the moment?
Instead can you do it this way:
config XEN
depends on PARAVIRT !PREEMPT HZ_100
12 matches
Mail list logo
