Sorry for late reply,
was on vacation for a week (without IMAP access :( )
On 04/12/2012 05:36 AM, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
On Fri, Mar 23, 2012 at 01:37:04PM +0530, Raghavendra K T wrote:
From: Srivatsa Vaddagiri<vatsa@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
[snip]
@@ -1567,6 +1568,9 @@ void kvm_vcpu_block(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
prepare_to_wait(&vcpu->wq,&wait, TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE);
if (kvm_arch_vcpu_runnable(vcpu)) {
+ vcpu->pv_unhalted = 0;
+ /* preventing reordering should be enough here */
+ barrier();
Is it always OK to erase the notification, even in case an unrelated
event such as interrupt was the source of wakeup?
Erasing notification is not good, But I think in this case,
kvm_make_request(KVM_REQ_UNHALT, vcpu);
below this would take care of the rest.
It would be easier to verify that notifications are not lost with atomic
test_and_clear(pv_unhalted).
true, I 'll verify that (with pv_unhalt as atomic variable). my heart
says current code is just fine, since we are about to unblock.
Also x86 specific code should remain in arch/x86/kvm/
I agree. 'll have clear function in arch/x86/kvm and add stub to rest
of the archs
--
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
