|
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] Re: [Xen-devel] Re: [PATCH] EPT: Flush running cpus, add mask to flush when scheduled in
On 22/09/2009 10:02, "Jan Beulich" <JBeulich@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> Please see what you think of xen-unstable:20244. > > With no assertion in ept_sync_domain() on any locks held, is it guaranteed > that the function cannot be entered twice at the same time for a given > guest? If not, passing a pointer to the new ept_synced member isn't any > better than passing the one to domain_dirty_cpumask. I assume George is knowledgeable on that area. If calls to ept_sync_domain() are not serialised then I think synchronisation around the ept_needs_flush/ept_synced cpumask is indeed pretty suspect. If there isn't such a serialising lock, we could add one to ept_sync_domain() quite safely. -- Keir _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
|
 |
Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our |