On 11/05/2015 09:41 AM, Will Deacon wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 04, 2015 at 06:51:12PM -0500, Sasha Levin wrote:
>> > On 11/04/2015 06:51 AM, Will Deacon wrote:
>>> > > + mutex_lock(&pause_lock);
>>> > > +
>>> > > + /* The kvm->cpus array contains a null pointer in the last location */
>>> > > + for (i = 0; ; i++) {
>>> > > + if (kvm->cpus[i])
>>> > > + pthread_kill(kvm->cpus[i]->thread, SIGKVMEXIT);
>>> > > + else
>>> > > + break;
>>> > > + }
>>> > > +
>>> > > + kvm__continue(kvm);
>> >
>> > In this scenario: if we grabbed pause_lock, signaled vcpu0 to exit, and it did
>> > before we called kvm__continue(), we won't end up releasing pause_lock, which
>> > might cause a lockup later, no?
> Hmm, yeah, maybe that should be an explicit mutex_unlock rather than a
> call to kvm__continue.
Yeah, that should do the trick.
Thanks,
Sasha
--
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
