On 2012-08-19 11:42, Avi Kivity wrote: > On 08/17/2012 06:04 PM, Jan Kiszka wrote: >> >>>> Can anyone imagine that such a barrier may actually be required? If it >>>> is currently possible that env->stop is evaluated before we called into >>>> sigtimedwait in qemu_kvm_eat_signals, then we could actually eat the >>>> signal without properly processing its reason (stop). >> >> Should not be required (TM): Both signal eating / stop checking and stop >> setting / signal generation happens under the BQL, thus the ordering >> must not make a difference here. > > Agree. > > >> Don't see where we could lose a signal. Maybe due to a subtle memory >> corruption that sets thread_kicked to non-zero, preventing the kicking >> this way. > > Cannot be ruled out, yet too much of a coincidence. > > Could be a kernel bug (either in kvm or elsewhere), we've had several > before in this area. > > Is this reproducible? Not for me. Peter only hit it very rarely, Peter obviously more easily. Jan -- Siemens AG, Corporate Technology, CT RTC ITP SDP-DE Corporate Competence Center Embedded Linux -- 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
