On 08/07/2013 09:09 PM, Takuya Yoshikawa wrote:
> On Tue, 30 Jul 2013 21:02:08 +0800
> Xiao Guangrong <xiaoguangrong@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>> @@ -2342,6 +2358,13 @@ static void kvm_mmu_commit_zap_page(struct kvm *kvm,
>> */
>> kvm_flush_remote_tlbs(kvm);
>>
>> + if (kvm->arch.rcu_free_shadow_page) {
>> + sp = list_first_entry(invalid_list, struct kvm_mmu_page, link);
>> + list_del_init(invalid_list);
>> + call_rcu(&sp->rcu, free_pages_rcu);
>> + return;
>> + }
>> +
>> list_for_each_entry_safe(sp, nsp, invalid_list, link) {
>> WARN_ON(!sp->role.invalid || sp->root_count);
>> kvm_mmu_free_page(sp);
>
> Shouldn't we avoid calling call_rcu() when we are holding mmu_lock?
Using call_rcu() to free pages is a rare case that happen only between
lockless write-protection and zapping shadow pages, so i think we do
not need to care this case too much.
--
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
