[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <46DD60A9.8080203@goop.org>
Date: Tue, 04 Sep 2007 14:42:01 +0100
From: Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org>
To: Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>
CC: Zachary Amsden <zach@...are.com>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...l.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org>,
Chris Wright <chrisw@...s-sol.org>, stable@...nel.org,
Virtualization Mailing List <virtualization@...ts.osdl.org>,
Andi Kleen <ak@...e.de>,
Anthony Liguori <anthony@...emonkey.ws>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Fix preemptible lazy mode bug
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()?
J
-
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