On Thu, 2007-08-23 at 23:59 -0700, Zachary Amsden wrote:
> Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote:
> > Hm. Doing any kind of lazy-state operation with preemption enabled is
> > fundamentally meaningless. How does it get into a preemptable state
> >
>
> Agree 100%. It is the lazy mode flush that might happen when preempt is
> enabled, but lazy mode is disabled. In that case, the code relies on
> per-cpu variables, which is a bad thing to do in preemtible code. This
> can happen in the current code path.
Frankly, we should hoist the per-cpu state into generic paravirt code,
get rid of the FLUSH "state" and only call the lazy_mode hooks when
actually entering or exiting a lazy mode.
The only reason lguest doesn't use a per-cpu var is that guests are
currently UP only. If that were fixed, we'd have identical VMI, Xen and
lguest lazy state handing.
Cheers,
Rusty.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
