On Wed, Oct 06, 2010 at 11:45:12AM -0300, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 06, 2010 at 12:55:04PM +0200, Gleb Natapov wrote:
> > On Tue, Oct 05, 2010 at 03:25:54PM -0300, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
> > > On Mon, Oct 04, 2010 at 05:56:29PM +0200, Gleb Natapov wrote:
> > > > Enable async PF in a guest if async PF capability is discovered.
> > > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: Gleb Natapov <gleb@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > ---
> > > > Documentation/kernel-parameters.txt | 3 +
> > > > arch/x86/include/asm/kvm_para.h | 5 ++
> > > > arch/x86/kernel/kvm.c | 92 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > > > 3 files changed, 100 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
> > > >
> > >
> > > > +static int __cpuinit kvm_cpu_notify(struct notifier_block *self,
> > > > + unsigned long action, void *hcpu)
> > > > +{
> > > > + int cpu = (unsigned long)hcpu;
> > > > + switch (action) {
> > > > + case CPU_ONLINE:
> > > > + case CPU_DOWN_FAILED:
> > > > + case CPU_ONLINE_FROZEN:
> > > > + smp_call_function_single(cpu, kvm_guest_cpu_notify, NULL, 0);
> > >
> > > wait parameter should probably be 1.
> > Why should we wait for it? FWIW I copied this from somewhere (May be
> > arch/x86/pci/amd_bus.c).
>
> So that you know its executed in a defined point in cpu bringup.
>
If I read code correctly CPU we are notified about is already running when
callback is called, so I do not see what waiting for IPI to be processed will
accomplish here. With many cpus we will make boot a little bit slower. I don't
care too much though, so if you still think that 1 is required here I'll make
it so.
--
Gleb.
--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxx For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>