[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1184208521.6005.695.camel@localhost.localdomain>
Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2007 12:48:41 +1000
From: Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>
To: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
Cc: hch@....de, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org
Subject: Re: lguest, Re: -mm merge plans for 2.6.23
On Wed, 2007-07-11 at 19:28 -0700, David Miller wrote:
> From: Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>
> Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2007 11:21:51 +1000
>
> > To do inter-guest (ie. inter-process) I/O you really have to make sure
> > the other side doesn't go away.
>
> You should just let it exit and when it does you receive some kind of
> exit notification that resets your virtual device channel.
>
> I think the reference counting approach is error and deadlock prone.
> Be more loose and let the events reset the virtual devices when
> guests go splat.
There are two places where we grab task refcnt. One might be avoidable
(will test and get back) but the deferred wakeup isn't really:
/* We cache one process to wakeup: helps for batching & wakes outside locks. */
void set_wakeup_process(struct lguest *lg, struct task_struct *p)
{
if (p == lg->wake)
return;
if (lg->wake) {
wake_up_process(lg->wake);
put_task_struct(lg->wake);
}
lg->wake = p;
if (lg->wake)
get_task_struct(lg->wake);
}
We drop the lock after I/O, and then do this wakeup. Meanwhile the
other task might have exited.
I could get rid of it, but I don't think there's anything wrong with the
code...
Cheers,
Rusty.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists