[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4EFAE705.6070202@redhat.com>
Date: Wed, 28 Dec 2011 11:53:09 +0200
From: Avi Kivity <avi@...hat.com>
To: Liu ping fan <kernelfans@...il.com>
CC: Takuya Yoshikawa <yoshikawa.takuya@....ntt.co.jp>,
kvm@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
aliguori@...ibm.com, gleb@...hat.com, mtosatti@...hat.com,
xiaoguangrong.eric@...il.com, jan.kiszka@....de,
Takuya Yoshikawa <takuya.yoshikawa@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6] kvm: make vcpu life cycle separated from kvm instance
On 12/28/2011 08:54 AM, Liu ping fan wrote:
> >>
> >> struct kvm_vcpu {
> >> struct kvm *kvm;
> >> + struct list_head list;
> >> #ifdef CONFIG_PREEMPT_NOTIFIERS
> >> struct preempt_notifier preempt_notifier;
> >> #endif
> >> @@ -251,12 +252,14 @@ struct kvm {
> >> struct mm_struct *mm; /* userspace tied to this vm */
> >> struct kvm_memslots *memslots;
> >> struct srcu_struct srcu;
> >> + struct srcu_struct srcu_vcpus;
> >> +
> >
> > Another srcu. This alone is worth explaining in the changelog IMO.
> >
> Sorry, but why? I think it is just a srcu, and because it has
> different aim and want a independent grace period, so not multiplex
> kvm->srcu.
There is Documentation/virtual/kvm/locking.txt for that.
btw, why does it have to be srcu? Is rcu insufficient?
Why do we want an independent grace period, is hotunplugging a vcpu that
much different from hotunplugging memory?
--
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