On 06/29/2009 01:06 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
2. if I do it before in_range removal it's a lot of churn:
one of the reasons for code reorg is so that there are less
places to change locking.
I don't think you really need to change anything. slots_lock is already
taken (except where you modify the list).
Are you sure about this? I don't understand the code well enough, so
this reuse of an apparently unrelated lock just makes me nervious. For
example what about emulate_instruction? It is sometimes called from
svm/vmx without slot lock ...
vcpu context always has slots lock taken IIRC, except when in guest mode.
It's not an unrelated lock; slots lock locks memory hotplug, we extend
it to lock mmio_bus and io_bus hotplug.
I'd really like to avoid a proliferation of locks.
How about this:
1. add slots_lock for write when modifying the list
2. change the api
3. drop kvm->lock
?
Looks like I will just have to bite the bullet and switch to RCU.
You still need a lock to prevent concurrent modifications to mmio_bus
(but can use kvm->lock for this).
--
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
