[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Xen-devel] Re: Should shadow_lock be spin_lock_recursive?

To: Xiaofeng Ling <xiaofeng.ling@xxxxxxxxx>
From: Keir Fraser <Keir.Fraser@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 12 May 2005 08:57:04 +0100
Cc: Arun Sharma <arun.sharma@xxxxxxxxx>, xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Delivery-date: Thu, 12 May 2005 07:59:22 +0000
List-id: Xen developer discussion <xen-devel.lists.xensource.com>


On 12 May 2005, at 02:57, Xiaofeng Ling wrote:

This dead lock happened on VNIF code when enabled shadow mode.
The shadow_lock path is so complex and maybe using recurisve lock
is the easiest way to avoid dead lock currently before clearing
the path or splitting the lock .

shadow_lock() and show_unlock() should just get the per-domain BIGLOCKI think. That's recursive anyway.


 -- Keir


_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel

References:
- [Xen-devel] Should shadow_lock be spin_lock_recursive?
  - From: Arun Sharma
- [Xen-devel] Re: Should shadow_lock be spin_lock_recursive?
  - From: Xiaofeng Ling

Prev by Date: Re: [Xen-devel] VMX check in /xen/arch/x86/domain.c is invalid on x86-64 (at least AMD)
Next by Date: [Xen-devel] accessing domain's page contents from hypervisor
Previous by thread: [Xen-devel] Re: Should shadow_lock be spin_lock_recursive?
Next by thread: RE: [Xen-devel] Re: Should shadow_lock be spin_lock_recursive?
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread

Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our
servers 24x7x365 and backed by RackSpace's Fanatical Support®.