On 05/18/2011 12:02 PM, Nadav Har'El wrote:
On Wed, May 18, 2011, Avi Kivity wrote about "Re: [PATCH 08/31] nVMX: Fix local_vcpus_link handling": > I did a quick audit and it seems fine. If it isn't, we'll fix it when > we see the problem. Ok, then, I'm working on the code with the new approach. My fear was that some CPU 7 is taken down, but vcpu.cpu remains 7 (not set to -1). If cpu 7 nevers comes up again, it's not a problem because when we run the same vcpu again on a different cpu, it's not 7 so we do what needs to be done on CPU switch. But, what if CPU 7 does come up again later, and we find ourselves running again on CPU 7, but it's not the same CPU 7 and we don't know it? Is this case at all possible?
It's certainly possible, but it's independent of this patch. It's even handled, see kvm_arch_hardware_enable(). -- 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
