[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4B84F9AF.8060804@redhat.com>
Date: Wed, 24 Feb 2010 12:04:31 +0200
From: Avi Kivity <avi@...hat.com>
To: Jan Kiszka <jan.kiszka@...mens.com>
CC: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, KVM <kvm@...r.kernel.org>,
Gleb Natapov <gleb@...hat.com>,
RT <linux-rt-users@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] KVM: x86: Kick VCPU outside PIC lock again
On 02/24/2010 11:54 AM, Jan Kiszka wrote:
> Avi Kivity wrote:
>
>> On 02/24/2010 11:41 AM, Jan Kiszka wrote:
>>
>>> Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> On Tue, 23 Feb 2010, Jan Kiszka wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> The i8254/i8259 locks need to be real spinlocks on preempt-rt. Convert
>>>>>> them to raw_spinlock. No change for !RT kernels.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> Doesn't fly for -rt anymore: pic_irq_update runs under this raw lock and
>>>>> calls kvm_vcpu_kick which tries to wake_up some thread -> scheduling
>>>>> while atomic.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> Hmm, a wakeup itself is fine. Is that code waking a wake queue ?
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Yes, it's a wake queue.
>>>
>>>
>> So what's the core issue? Is the lock_t in the wait_queue a sleeping mutex?
>>
> Yep.
>
I see. Won't we hit the same issue when we call pic functions from
atomic context during the guest entry sequence?
--
error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function
--
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