On Tue, Dec 20, 2011 at 01:29:35PM +0900, Takuya Yoshikawa wrote:
> (2011/11/14 19:07), Avi Kivity wrote:
> >>@@ -1491,7 +1492,8 @@ void mark_page_dirty_in_slot(struct kvm *kvm, struct kvm_memory_slot *memslot,
> >> if (memslot&& memslot->dirty_bitmap) {
> >> unsigned long rel_gfn = gfn - memslot->base_gfn;
> >>
> >>- __set_bit_le(rel_gfn, memslot->dirty_bitmap);
> >>+ if (!__test_and_set_bit_le(rel_gfn, memslot->dirty_bitmap))
> >>+ memslot->nr_dirty_pages++;
> >> }
> >> }
> >>
>
> [snip]
>
> >btw mark_page_dirty() itself seems to assume mmu_lock protection that
> >doesn't exist. Marcelo?
> >
Not mmu_lock protection, kvm->srcu protection.
> I want to hear the answer for this question.
>
> Though I myself is reading the code, I cannot understand it thoroughly yet.
> I wish if there were mmu_lock entry in locking.txt ...
Agreed.
--
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
