search for: cpun

...plying to your box, since bios call is done in wakeup stub. Or else in case you have to use "vbetool post" from user space, one possible workaround is to manual unplug other cpus before suspend and re-plug them after VGA is resumed by: #echo "0" > /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpuN/online #echo "mem" > /sys/power/state ----After resume to user space---- #vbetool post ----Wait til VGA is fully resumed---- #echo "1" > /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpuN/online I guess such issue may be related to vm86 emulation under SMP, for both Xen and Linux....

...plying to your box, since bios call is done in wakeup stub. Or else in case you have to use "vbetool post" from user space, one possible workaround is to manual unplug other cpus before suspend and re-plug them after VGA is resumed by: #echo "0" > /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpuN/online #echo "mem" > /sys/power/state ----After resume to user space---- #vbetool post ----Wait til VGA is fully resumed---- #echo "1" > /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpuN/online I guess such issue may be related to vm86 emulation under SMP, for both Xen and Linux....

...uld clock back 'its' CPU, all the CPUs are clocked back ... regardless of the fact that one or more of the other CPUs may be busy. Something similar seems to be happening using the various cpufreq governors - configuration is available for all CPUs separately (under /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpuN/cpufreq). i.e. it appears you can configure settings for each CPU independently, but in reality all CPUs must run at the same speed. Essentially what I want to achieve is something like: if _any_ CPU is 'busy' (usage over some threshold over some sampling period), then run at full speed an...

Stamp softlockup thread earlier before do_timer, because the latter is the one to actually trigger lock warning for long-time offline. Or else, I obserevd softlockup warning easily at manual vcpu hot-remove/plug, or when suspend cancel into old context. One point here is to cover both stolen and blocked time to compare with offline threshold. vcpu hotplug falls into ''stolen''

...> (0,1) --------------------------------:--> (*,0) > + * : | ^--------. / : > + * : v \ | : > + * uncontended : (n,x) --+--> (n,0) | : So many CPUn come in right? Is 'n' for the number of CPUs? > + * queue : | ^--' | : > + * : v | : > + * contended : (*,x) --+--> (*,0) -----> (*,1) ---'...

...> (0,1) --------------------------------:--> (*,0) > + * : | ^--------. / : > + * : v \ | : > + * uncontended : (n,x) --+--> (n,0) | : So many CPUn come in right? Is 'n' for the number of CPUs? > + * queue : | ^--' | : > + * : v | : > + * contended : (*,x) --+--> (*,0) -----> (*,1) ---'...

...------------------:--> (*,0) > > + * : | ^--------. / : > > + * : v \ | : > > + * uncontended : (n,x) --+--> (n,0) | : > > So many CPUn come in right? Is 'n' for the number of CPUs? Nope, 'n' for any one specific tail, in particular the first one to arrive. This is the 'uncontended queue' case as per the label, so we need a named value for the first, in order to distinguish between the state to the right (s...

Since Waiman seems incapable of doing simple things; here's my take on the paravirt crap. The first few patches are taken from Waiman's latest series, but the virt support is completely new. Its primary aim is to not mess up the native code. I've not stress tested it, but the virt and paravirt (kvm) cases boot on simple smp guests. I've not done Xen, but the patch should be

Since Waiman seems incapable of doing simple things; here's my take on the paravirt crap. The first few patches are taken from Waiman's latest series, but the virt support is completely new. Its primary aim is to not mess up the native code. I've not stress tested it, but the virt and paravirt (kvm) cases boot on simple smp guests. I've not done Xen, but the patch should be