19 messages in com.xensource.lists.xen-develRE: [Xen-devel] [PATCH 0/4] HVM Virtu...
FromSent OnAttachments
Ke, Liping19 May 2008 23:58 
Keir Fraser20 May 2008 06:52 
Ke, Liping20 May 2008 07:38 
Keir Fraser20 May 2008 07:42 
Ke, Liping20 May 2008 07:47 
Keir Fraser20 May 2008 07:49 
Ke, Liping20 May 2008 08:19 
Keir Fraser20 May 2008 08:20 
Ke, Liping20 May 2008 23:30 
Keir Fraser21 May 2008 00:32 
Keir Fraser23 May 2008 03:47 
Ke, Liping23 May 2008 16:40 
Ke, Liping23 May 2008 17:01 
Keir Fraser24 May 2008 00:37 
Ke, Liping25 May 2008 23:10 
Keir Fraser26 May 2008 00:20 
Ke, Liping26 May 2008 00:44 
Keir Fraser26 May 2008 00:48 
Ke, Liping26 May 2008 01:20 
Subject:RE: [Xen-devel] [PATCH 0/4] HVM Virtual S3 --- Revised and resent
From:Ke, Liping (lipi@intel.com)
Date:05/26/2008 01:20:31 AM
List:com.xensource.lists.xen-devel

Hi, Keir It works fine, I test vcpu=1 or 2 on FC6_32p and FC8_32e So no other problems I could see now -:). Thanks a lot!! Regards, Criping

-----Original Message----- From: Keir Fraser [mailto:keir@eu.citrix.com] Sent: 2008?5?26? 15:49 To: Ke, Liping; xen-@lists.xensource.com Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH 0/4] HVM Virtual S3 --- Revised and resent

Hopefully it is fixed by c/s 17730. I did not see this with a Fedora kernel, perhaps because I tested a single-processor guest and perhaps that VCPU was dropped into real mode before triggering S3. I'm not sure. Anyhow S3 definitely didn't work properly so I suspect there are still one or two bugs which some wider testing coverage would pick out.

-- Keir

On 26/5/08 08:45, "Ke, Liping" <lipi@intel.com> wrote:

Hi, Keir

Yes, actually by case 4, I found the problem. Because vtd-assigned guest will first check whether the pci device is available first. I did not verify it on 32bit guest yet.

Regards, Criping

-----Original Message----- From: Keir Fraser [mailto:keir@eu.citrix.com] Sent: 2008?5?26? 15:21 To: Ke, Liping; xen-@lists.xensource.com Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH 0/4] HVM Virtual S3 --- Revised and resent

On 26/5/08 07:11, "Ke, Liping" <lipi@intel.com> wrote:

4) fc8_32e, vtd nic assigned. It works fine. Yet found still find below problem domain_destroy is not completed, so vtd-resources are not freed totally. So when you destroy this domain and recreate the domain process will fail.

Also verified with even have update_paging_modes, cr3 missing domain_page error problem still exists. I remember I tracked the problem before, When update_page_mode, if we changed cr3, it will put_page(old cr3 page) and Get_page(new cr3 page), so it will keep balance. But for this s3 case, since when sleep down it is in protected mode, when back it begins from real mode, so the cr3 used in protected mode is never put?

Do you see this only in case 4 (64-bit guest with VT-d assignment)?

-- Keir