[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4F26BC1A.8060002@redhat.com>
Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2012 17:49:46 +0200
From: Avi Kivity <avi@...hat.com>
To: Eric B Munson <emunson@...bm.net>
CC: mingo@...hat.com, hpa@...or.com, ryanh@...ux.vnet.ibm.com,
aliguori@...ibm.com, mtosatti@...hat.com,
jeremy.fitzhardinge@...rix.com, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
linux-arch@...r.kernel.org, x86@...nel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Jan Kiszka <jan.kiszka@....de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/4 V10] Add ioctl for KVMCLOCK_GUEST_STOPPED
On 01/30/2012 05:32 PM, Eric B Munson wrote:
> >
> > Can you point me to the discussion that moved this to be a vm ioctl? In
> > general vm ioctls that do things for all vcpus are racy, like here.
> > You're accessing variables that are protected by the vcpu mutex, and not
> > taking the mutex (nor can you, since it is held while the guest is
> > running, unlike most kernel mutexes).
> >
>
> Jan Kiszka suggested that becuase there isn't a use case for notifying
> individual vcpus (can vcpu's be paused individually?
They can, though the guest will grind to a halt very soon.
> ) that it makes more sense
> to have a vm ioctl.
>
> http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.emulators.qemu/131624
>
> If the per vcpu ioctl is the right choice I can resend those patches.
The races are solvable but I think it's easier in userspace. It's also
more flexible, though I don't really see a use for this flexibility.
--
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