On 27/03/2019 17:38, Jan Beulich wrote: >>>> 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.
I can add that handling in the respin of the series. Juergen _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel
