Re: [patch 0/4] move irq protection role to separate lock v2

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

 



Marcelo Tosatti wrote:

x86 actually shares the same problem. KVM_IRQ_LINE interrupts may arrive at any vcpu. Furthermore, with irqfd interrupts may be injected from userspace (the vm process or other processes) or from the kernel (assigned device, kernel virtio-net device). So we have the same motivation to drop this lock and replace it by rcu for the fast paths.

OK, will use the lock to serialize individual ioctl commands that are
not performance sensitive and need serialization.

Locks should protect data, not operations. Something named ioctl_lock indicates something is wrong.

Any objection to v2 of the irq_lock patch?

Haven't done a detailed review yet, sorry.

--
error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function

--
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

[Index of Archives]     [KVM ARM]     [KVM ia64]     [KVM ppc]     [Virtualization Tools]     [Spice Development]     [Libvirt]     [Libvirt Users]     [Linux USB Devel]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Yosemite Questions]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]     [XFree86]
  Powered by Linux