Re: [PATCH RFC V5 2/6] kvm hypervisor : Add a hypercall to KVM hypervisor to support pv-ticketlocks

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



Sorry for late reply,
was on vacation for a week (without IMAP access :( )

On 04/12/2012 05:36 AM, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
On Fri, Mar 23, 2012 at 01:37:04PM +0530, Raghavendra K T wrote:
From: Srivatsa Vaddagiri<vatsa@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
[snip]
@@ -1567,6 +1568,9 @@ void kvm_vcpu_block(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
  		prepare_to_wait(&vcpu->wq,&wait, TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE);

  		if (kvm_arch_vcpu_runnable(vcpu)) {
+			vcpu->pv_unhalted = 0;
+			/* preventing reordering should be enough here */
+			barrier();

Is it always OK to erase the notification, even in case an unrelated
event such as interrupt was the source of wakeup?


Erasing notification is not good, But I think in this case,

kvm_make_request(KVM_REQ_UNHALT, vcpu);

below this would take care of the rest.


It would be easier to verify that notifications are not lost with atomic

test_and_clear(pv_unhalted).

true, I 'll verify that (with pv_unhalt as atomic variable). my heart
says  current code is just fine, since we are about to unblock.


Also x86 specific code should remain in arch/x86/kvm/


I agree. 'll have clear function in arch/x86/kvm and add stub to rest
of the archs



_______________________________________________
Virtualization mailing list
Virtualization@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization


[KVM Development]     [Libvirt Development]     [Libvirt Users]     [CentOS Virtualization]     [Netdev]     [Ethernet Bridging]     [Linux Wireless]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Security]     [Linux for Hams]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Photo]     [Yosemite]     [Yosemite Forum]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux RAID]     [Linux Admin]     [Samba]     [Find Someone Nice]     [Video 4 Linux]     [Linux Resources]
Add to Google Powered by Linux