On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 7:36 PM, Marcelo Tosatti <mtosatti@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at 10:41:23AM +0800, Liu Ping Fan wrote: >> From: Liu Ping Fan <pingfank@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> >> >> Currently, vcpu can be destructed only when kvm instance destroyed. >> Change this to vcpu's destruction taken when its refcnt is zero, >> and then vcpu MUST and CAN be destroyed before kvm's destroy. >> >> Signed-off-by: Liu Ping Fan <pingfank@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> >> --- >> arch/x86/kvm/i8254.c | 10 ++++-- >> arch/x86/kvm/i8259.c | 12 +++++-- >> arch/x86/kvm/mmu.c | 7 ++-- >> arch/x86/kvm/x86.c | 54 +++++++++++++++++++---------------- >> include/linux/kvm_host.h | 71 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++---- >> virt/kvm/irq_comm.c | 7 +++- >> virt/kvm/kvm_main.c | 62 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------ >> 7 files changed, 170 insertions(+), 53 deletions(-) > > This needs a full audit of paths that access vcpus. See for one example > bsp_vcpu pointer. > Yes, I had missed it and just paid attention to the access path to vcpu in kvm_lapic and the path used in async_pf. I will correct it later. BTW, I want to make it sure that because kvm_lapic will be destroyed before vcpu, so it is safe to bypass the access path there, and the situation is the same in async_pf for we have called kvm_clear_async_pf_completion_queue before zapping vcpu. Am I right? As to the scene like bsp_vcpu, I think that introducing refcount like in V2 can handle it easier. Please help to review these changes in V4 which I will send a little later. Thanks and regards ping fan > -- 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
