On Wed, 2021-03-10 at 15:11 +0100, Paolo Bonzini wrote: > On 10/03/21 14:20, Elena Afanasova wrote: > > On Tue, 2021-03-09 at 09:01 +0100, Paolo Bonzini wrote: > > > On 09/03/21 08:54, Jason Wang wrote: > > > > > + return; > > > > > + > > > > > + spin_lock(&ctx->wq.lock); > > > > > + wait_event_interruptible_exclusive_locked(ctx->wq, !ctx- > > > > > > busy); > > > > > > > > Any reason that a simple mutex_lock_interruptible() can't work > > > > here? > > > > > > Or alternatively why can't the callers just take the spinlock. > > > > > I'm not sure I understand your question. Do you mean why locked > > version > > of wait_event() is used? > > No, I mean why do you need to use ctx->busy and wait_event, instead > of > operating directly on the spinlock or on a mutex. > When ioregionfd communication is interrupted by a signal ioctl(KVM_RUN) has to return to userspace. I'm not sure it's ok to do that with the spinlock/mutex being held. > Paolo >
