linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH: kvm 4/5] Fix hotremove of CPUs for KVM.

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Sun, 27 Sep 2009 15:42:47 -1000
From:	Zachary Amsden <zamsden@...hat.com>
To:	Avi Kivity <avi@...hat.com>
CC:	kvm@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Marcelo Tosatti <mtosatti@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH: kvm 4/5] Fix hotremove of CPUs for KVM.

On 09/26/2009 10:54 PM, Avi Kivity wrote:
>
> First, I'm not sure per_cpu works for possible but not actual cpus.  
> Second, we now eagerly allocate but lazily free, leading to lots of 
> ifs and buts.  I think the code can be cleaner by eagerly allocating 
> and eagerly freeing.

Eager freeing requires a hotplug remove notification to the arch layer.  
I had done that originally, but not sure.

How does per_cpu() work when defined in a module anyway?  The linker 
magic going on here evades a simple one-minute analysis.

Zach
--
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/