Re: [PATCH v4] kvm: make vcpu life cycle separated from kvm instance

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On 12/15/2011 02:53 PM, Liu ping fan wrote:


> 
>>> +struct kvm_vcpu *kvm_vcpu_get(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
>>> +{
>>> +     if (vcpu == NULL)
>>> +             return NULL;
>>> +     if (atomic_add_unless(&vcpu->refcount, 1, 0))
>>
>>
>> Why do not use atomic_inc()?
>> Also, i think a memory barrier is needed after increasing refcount.
>>
> Because when refcout==0, we prepare to destroy vcpu, and do not to
> disturb it by increasing the refcount.


Oh, get it.

> And sorry but I can not figure out the scene why memory barrier needed
> here.  Seems no risks on SMP.
> 


If atomic_add_unless is necessary, memory barrier is not needed here.

--
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


[Index of Archives]     [KVM ARM]     [KVM ia64]     [KVM ppc]     [Virtualization Tools]     [Spice Development]     [Libvirt]     [Libvirt Users]     [Linux USB Devel]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Yosemite Questions]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]     [XFree86]
  Powered by Linux