[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <473993B3.4060508@qumranet.com>
Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2007 14:08:19 +0200
From: Izik Eidus <izike@...ranet.com>
To: Glauber de Oliveira Costa <gcosta@...hat.com>
CC: "Dong, Eddie" <eddie.dong@...el.com>,
kvm-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net, jeremy@...p.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, hollisb@...ibm.com, avi@...ranet.com
Subject: Re: [kvm-devel] [PATCH 2/3] kvmclock - the host part.
Glauber de Oliveira Costa wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Dong, Eddie escreveu:
>
>>> +static void kvm_write_guest_time(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu) +{
>>> + struct timespec ts;
>>> + int r;
>>> +
>>> + if (!vcpu->clock_gpa)
>>> + return;
>>> +
>>> + /* Updates version to the next odd number, indicating
>>> we're writing */
>>> + vcpu->hv_clock.version++;
>>> + kvm_write_guest(vcpu->kvm, vcpu->clock_gpa,
>>> &vcpu->hv_clock, PAGE_SIZE);
>>> +
>>> + kvm_get_msr(vcpu, MSR_IA32_TIME_STAMP_COUNTER,
>>> + &vcpu->hv_clock.last_tsc);
>>> +
>>> + ktime_get_ts(&ts);
>>>
>> Do we need to disable preemption here?
>>
> After thinking for a little while, you are theoretically right.
> In the current state, we could even be preempted between all operations
> ;-) Maybe after avi's suggestion of moving the call to it it will end up
> in a preempt safe region, but anyway, it's safer to add the preempt
> markers here.
> I'll put it in next version, thanks
>
note that you cant call to kvm_write_guest with preemption disabled
(witch you do few lines below)
-
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