On Mon, Dec 05, 2011 at 11:58:56AM +0200, Avi Kivity wrote: > On 12/05/2011 11:42 AM, Gleb Natapov wrote: > > On Mon, Dec 05, 2011 at 11:30:51AM +0200, Avi Kivity wrote: > > > On 12/05/2011 07:29 AM, Liu ping fan wrote: > > > > like this, > > > > #define kvm_for_each_vcpu(idx, cnt, vcpup, kvm) \ > > > > for (idx = 0, cnt = 0, vcpup = kvm_get_vcpu(kvm, idx); \ > > > > cnt < atomic_read(&kvm->online_vcpus) && \ > > > > idx < KVM_MAX_VCPUS; \ > > > > idx++, (vcpup == NULL)?:cnt++, vcpup = kvm_get_vcpu(kvm, idx)) \ > > > > if (vcpup == NULL) \ > > > > continue; \ > > > > else > > > > > > > > > > > > A little ugly, but have not thought a better way out :-) > > > > > > > > > > #define kvm_for_each_vcpu(vcpu, it) for (vcpu = kvm_fev_init(&it); vcpu; > > > vcpu = kvm_fev_next(&it, vcpu)) > > > > > > Though that doesn't give a good place for rcu_read_unlock(). > > > > > > > > Why not use rculist to store vcpus and use list_for_each_entry_rcu()? > > We can, but that's a bigger change. > Is it? I do not see a lot of accesses to vcpu array except those loops. -- 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
