Re: pool_cache_invalidate(9) (wrong?) semantic -- enable xcall invalidation

[Thor Lancelot Simon <tls%panix.com@localhost>]

On Wed, Nov 09, 2011 at 11:49:10AM +0100, Jean-Yves Migeon wrote:
> 
> This is the idea. One shortcoming though: the pool_cache(9) content
> is not synchronously invalidated, depleting the per-CPU cache would
> only happen when the CPU pool_cache_get() a new object.
> 
> From an API perspective is it ok for everyone? In my case, I'll have
> to xcall(9) a pool_cache_get() for each CPU to force-deplete the
> pools because of Xen shortcomings (it tracks page types and will
> raise an exception when pages are not freed on a suspension).

I guess I don't quite understand what's happening on suspension.  You
are talking about suspending the Xen VM?  Or taking a CPU offline?

Thor