[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] x86: fix domain cleanup
>>> Keir Fraser <keir.fraser@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> 28.10.08 13:06 >>> >And who will ultimately destroy that reference if we e.g., xm destroy a >guest? Are you hoping the circular-reference destruction logic will deal >with this case also? Seems to me there would be a difference between >preempted get_page_type() and preempted put_page_type() here -- in the >latter case there is still a holder of the outstanding general reference >count (the holder who tried to do the put_page_type() which got preempted) >whereas in the former case the general reference count is not really held by >anyone and so relinquish_memory() would indeed have to dispose of it? If we set the simple rule of "Whoever sets PGT_partial must make sure he leaves an extra ref pending, and whoever clears PGT_partial must drop that reference", we should be fine in my opinion. Also, a preempted get_page_and_type_from_pagenr() drops the general reference, and a preempted put_page_and_type() retains it, so to me the page state seems to be consistent between the two. Jan _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
|
![]() |
Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our |