[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20190801162451.GE31538@redhat.com>
Date: Thu, 1 Aug 2019 18:24:51 +0200
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, x86@...nel.org,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Sebastian Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>,
Anna-Maria Gleixner <anna-maria@...utronix.de>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Julia Cartwright <julia@...com>,
Paul McKenney <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
Radim Krcmar <rkrcmar@...hat.com>,
Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
John Stultz <john.stultz@...aro.org>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [patch 2/5] x86/kvm: Handle task_work on VMENTER/EXIT
On 08/01, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>
> @@ -8172,6 +8174,10 @@ static int vcpu_run(struct kvm_vcpu *vcp
> ++vcpu->stat.signal_exits;
> break;
> }
> +
> + if (notify_resume_pending())
> + tracehook_handle_notify_resume();
shouldn't you drop kvm->srcu before tracehook_handle_notify_resume() ?
I don't understand this code at all, but vcpu_run() does this even before
cond_resched().
Oleg.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists