RE: [Xen-devel] [PATCH 1/2] RFC: Prepare PAD for native and xen platform

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

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?


To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-acpi" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at

[Site Home]     [Linux IBM ACPI]     [Linux Power Management]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux Laptop]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Share Photos]     [Security]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Rubini]     [Photo]     [Yosemite Photos]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Samba]     [Video 4 Linux]     [Device Mapper]     [Linux Resources]

  Powered by Linux