On Wed, Oct 06, 2010 at 11:45:12AM -0300, Marcelo Tosatti wrote: > On Wed, Oct 06, 2010 at 12:55:04PM +0200, Gleb Natapov wrote: > > On Tue, Oct 05, 2010 at 03:25:54PM -0300, Marcelo Tosatti wrote: > > > On Mon, Oct 04, 2010 at 05:56:29PM +0200, Gleb Natapov wrote: > > > > Enable async PF in a guest if async PF capability is discovered. > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Gleb Natapov <gleb@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > > --- > > > > Documentation/kernel-parameters.txt | 3 + > > > > arch/x86/include/asm/kvm_para.h | 5 ++ > > > > arch/x86/kernel/kvm.c | 92 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > > > 3 files changed, 100 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-) > > > > > > > > > > > +static int __cpuinit kvm_cpu_notify(struct notifier_block *self, > > > > + unsigned long action, void *hcpu) > > > > +{ > > > > + int cpu = (unsigned long)hcpu; > > > > + switch (action) { > > > > + case CPU_ONLINE: > > > > + case CPU_DOWN_FAILED: > > > > + case CPU_ONLINE_FROZEN: > > > > + smp_call_function_single(cpu, kvm_guest_cpu_notify, NULL, 0); > > > > > > wait parameter should probably be 1. > > Why should we wait for it? FWIW I copied this from somewhere (May be > > arch/x86/pci/amd_bus.c). > > So that you know its executed in a defined point in cpu bringup. > If I read code correctly CPU we are notified about is already running when callback is called, so I do not see what waiting for IPI to be processed will accomplish here. With many cpus we will make boot a little bit slower. I don't care too much though, so if you still think that 1 is required here I'll make it so. -- Gleb. -- 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