linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v6] kvm: make vcpu life cycle separated from kvm instance

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

Date:	Thu, 5 Jan 2012 17:35:34 +0800
From:	Liu ping fan <kernelfans@...il.com>
To:	Avi Kivity <avi@...hat.com>
Cc:	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 Thu, Dec 29, 2011 at 10:31 PM, Avi Kivity <avi@...hat.com> wrote:
> On 12/29/2011 04:03 PM, Liu ping fan wrote:
>> > Why do we want an independent grace period, is hotunplugging a vcpu that
>> > much different from hotunplugging memory?
>> >
>> I thought that if less readers on the same srcu lock, then
>> synchronize_srcu_expedited() may success to return more quickly.
>
> It would be good to measure it, otherwise it's premature optimization.
>
Yes, after using kprobetrace to measure it, I found it was  premature
optimization. So I will resort to the kvm->srcu, instead of creating a
new one in next version.

Thanks and regards
ping fan
> --
> 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/