[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <YLnwum6AtcURNlRL@google.com>
Date: Fri, 4 Jun 2021 18:22:02 +0900
From: Sergey Senozhatsky <senozhatsky@...omium.org>
To: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
Cc: Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@...hat.com>,
Sergey Senozhatsky <senozhatsky@...omium.org>,
Marc Zyngier <maz@...nel.org>,
Huacai Chen <chenhuacai@...nel.org>,
Paul Mackerras <paulus@...abs.org>,
Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@...ibm.com>,
Suleiman Souhlal <suleiman@...gle.com>, x86@...nel.org,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, kvmarm@...ts.cs.columbia.edu,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mips@...r.kernel.org,
kvm@...r.kernel.org, kvm-ppc@...r.kernel.org,
linux-s390@...r.kernel.org,
Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>,
Jim Mattson <jmattson@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH] kvm: add suspend pm-notifier
On (21/06/04 09:24), Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> On 04/06/21 09:21, Vitaly Kuznetsov wrote:
> > > preempt_notifier_inc();
> > > + kvm_init_pm_notifier(kvm);
> > You've probably thought it through and I didn't but wouldn't it be
> > easier to have one global pm_notifier call for KVM which would go
> > through the list of VMs instead of registering/deregistering a
> > pm_notifier call for every created/destroyed VM?
>
> That raises questions on the locking, i.e. if we can we take the kvm_lock
> safely from the notifier.
Right, I wanted to take the VM lock, rather than subsystem lock
(kvm_lock).
Powered by blists - more mailing lists