Il 22/09/2013 09:42, Gleb Natapov ha scritto: > On Mon, Sep 16, 2013 at 04:06:10PM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote: >> Paul Gortmaker reported a BUG on preempt-rt kernels, due to taking the >> mmu_lock within the raw kvm_lock in mmu_shrink_scan. He provided a >> patch that shrunk the kvm_lock critical section so that the mmu_lock >> critical section does not nest with it, but in the end there is no reason >> for the vm_list to be protected by a raw spinlock. Only manipulations >> of kvm_usage_count and the consequent hardware_enable/disable operations >> are not preemptable. >> >> This small series thus splits the kvm_lock in the "raw" part and the >> "non-raw" part. >> >> Paul, could you please provide your Tested-by? >> > Reviewed-by: Gleb Natapov <gleb@xxxxxxxxxx> > > But why should it go to stable? It is a regression from before the kvm_lock was made raw. Secondarily, it takes a much longer time before a patch hits -rt trees (can even be as much as a year) and this patch does nothing on non-rt trees. So without putting it into stable it would get no actual coverage. Paolo -- 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
