[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4D243FEF.6090105@redhat.com>
Date: Wed, 05 Jan 2011 11:54:55 +0200
From: Avi Kivity <avi@...hat.com>
To: Xiao Guangrong <xiaoguangrong@...fujitsu.com>
CC: Marcelo Tosatti <mtosatti@...hat.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, KVM <kvm@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] KVM: make make_all_cpus_request() lockless
On 01/05/2011 11:40 AM, Xiao Guangrong wrote:
> Now, we have 'vcpu->guest_mode' to judge whether need to send
> ipi to other cpus, this way is very exact, so checking request
> bit is needless, then we can drop the spinlock let it's collateral
Clever.
> @@ -147,11 +147,9 @@ static bool make_all_cpus_request(struct kvm *kvm, unsigned int req)
>
> zalloc_cpumask_var(&cpus, GFP_ATOMIC);
>
> - raw_spin_lock(&kvm->requests_lock);
> - me = smp_processor_id();
> + me = get_cpu();
> kvm_for_each_vcpu(i, vcpu, kvm) {
> - if (kvm_make_check_request(req, vcpu))
> - continue;
> + kvm_make_request(req, vcpu);
> cpu = vcpu->cpu;
> if (cpus != NULL&& cpu != -1&& cpu != me&&
> atomic_read(&vcpu->guest_mode))
> @@ -163,7 +161,7 @@ static bool make_all_cpus_request(struct kvm *kvm, unsigned int req)
> smp_call_function_many(cpus, ack_flush, NULL, 1);
> else
> called = false;
> - raw_spin_unlock(&kvm->requests_lock);
> + put_cpu();
> free_cpumask_var(cpus);
> return called;
> }
Maybe we can drop 'cpu != me' and then we don't need to disable preemption?
Can be done in a later patch.
Anyway, I really like this, requests_lock is an ugly wart.
--
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