On Mon, Apr 20, 2015 at 06:59:04PM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote: > > > On 17/04/2015 22:18, Marcelo Tosatti wrote: > > The bug which this is fixing is very rare, have no memory of a report. > > > > In fact, its even difficult to create a synthetic reproducer. > > But then why was the task migration notifier even in Jeremy's original > code for Xen? To cover for the vcpu1 -> vcpu2 -> vcpu1 case, i believe. > Was it supposed to work even on non-synchronized TSC? Yes it is supposed to work on non-synchronized TSC. > If that's the case, then it could be reverted indeed; but then why did > you commit this patch to 4.1? Because it fixes the problem Andy reported (see Subject: KVM: x86: fix kvmclock write race (v2) on kvm@). As long as you have Radim's fix on top. > Did you think of something that would > cause the seqcount-like protocol to fail, and that turned out not to be > the case later? I was only following the mailing list sparsely in March. No. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
