On 02/10/2011 03:47 PM, Jan Kiszka wrote:
>>
>> Accept for mmu_shrink, which is write but not delete, thus works without
>> that slow synchronize_rcu.
>
> I don't really see how you can implement list_move_rcu(), it has to be
> atomic or other users will see a partial vm_list.
Right, even if we synchronized that step cleanly, rcu-protected users
could miss the moving vm during concurrent list walks.
What about using a separate mutex for protecting vm_list instead?
Unless I missed some detail, mmu_shrink should allow blocking.
What else does kvm_lock protect?
I think we could simply reduce the amount of time we hold kvm_lock.
Pick a vm, ref it, list_move_tail(), unlock, then do the actual
shrinking. Of course taking a ref must be done carefully, we might
already be in kvm_destroy_vm() at that time.
--
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
