Rusty Russell wrote:
> On Tue, 2007-09-04 at 14:42 +0100, Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote:
>
>> Rusty Russell wrote:
>>
>>> static inline void arch_flush_lazy_mmu_mode(void)
>>> {
>>> - PVOP_VCALL1(set_lazy_mode, PARAVIRT_LAZY_FLUSH);
>>> + if (unlikely(__get_cpu_var(paravirt_lazy_mode) == PARAVIRT_LAZY_MMU))
>>> + arch_leave_lazy_mmu_mode();
>>> }
>>>
>>>
>> This changes the semantics a bit; previously "flush" would flush
>> anything pending but leave us in lazy mode. This just drops lazymode
>> altogether?
>>
>> I guess if we assume that flushing is a rare event then its OK, but I
>> think the name's a bit misleading. How does it differ from plain
>> arch_leave_lazy_mmu_mode()?
>>
>
> Whether it's likely or unlikely to be in lazy mode, basically. But
> you're right, this should be folded, since we don't want to "leave" lazy
> mode twice.
>
Hm, I think there's still a problem here. In the current code, you can
legitimately flush lazy mode with preemption enabled (ie, there's no
lazy mode currently active), but it's always a bug to enable/disable
lazy mode with preemption enabled. Certainly enabling lazy mode with
preemption enabled is always a bug, but you could make disable
preempt-safe (and the bug checking should be in the common code).
J
_______________________________________________
Virtualization mailing list
Virtualization@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
