On Thu, Dec 29, 2011 at 10:31 PM, Avi Kivity wrote:
> On 12/29/2011 04:03 PM, Liu ping fan wrote:
>> > Why do we want an independent grace period, is hotunplugging a vcpu that
>> > much different from hotunplugging memory?
>> >
>> I thought that if less readers on the same srcu lock, then
>> synch
On 12/29/2011 04:03 PM, Liu ping fan wrote:
> > Why do we want an independent grace period, is hotunplugging a vcpu that
> > much different from hotunplugging memory?
> >
> I thought that if less readers on the same srcu lock, then
> synchronize_srcu_expedited() may success to return more quickly.
On Wed, Dec 28, 2011 at 5:53 PM, Avi Kivity wrote:
> On 12/28/2011 08:54 AM, Liu ping fan wrote:
>> >>
>> >> struct kvm_vcpu {
>> >> struct kvm *kvm;
>> >> + struct list_head list;
>> >> #ifdef CONFIG_PREEMPT_NOTIFIERS
>> >> struct preempt_notifier preempt_notifier;
>> >> #en
On 12/28/2011 12:19 PM, Takuya Yoshikawa wrote:
>> Oops, that's only needed when the unplug API is introduced.
>>
>
>
> I think it is OK to to add such an API later on, but I really want
> the author to write the plan in the changelog.
It was in fact in the beginning of the thread.
> I am not ob
(2011/12/28 15:54), Liu ping fan wrote:
You are introducing kvm_arch_vcpu_zap().
Then, apart from the "zap" naming issue I mentioned last time,
Yes, I will correct "zap", as you said, its meaning is quite different
from destroy. :-)
what about other architectures than x86?
Have not conside
(2011/12/28 18:54), Avi Kivity wrote:
On 12/28/2011 11:53 AM, Avi Kivity wrote:
On 12/27/2011 10:38 AM, Liu Ping Fan wrote:
From: Liu Ping Fan
Currently, vcpu can be destructed only when kvm instance destroyed.
Change this to vcpu's destruction before kvm instance, so vcpu MUST
and CAN be dest
On 12/28/2011 11:53 AM, Avi Kivity wrote:
> On 12/27/2011 10:38 AM, Liu Ping Fan wrote:
> > From: Liu Ping Fan
> >
> > Currently, vcpu can be destructed only when kvm instance destroyed.
> > Change this to vcpu's destruction before kvm instance, so vcpu MUST
> > and CAN be destroyed before kvm's d
On 12/27/2011 10:38 AM, Liu Ping Fan wrote:
> From: Liu Ping Fan
>
> Currently, vcpu can be destructed only when kvm instance destroyed.
> Change this to vcpu's destruction before kvm instance, so vcpu MUST
> and CAN be destroyed before kvm's destroy.
>
> Signed-off-by: Liu Ping Fan
> ---
> arch
On 12/28/2011 08:54 AM, Liu ping fan wrote:
> >>
> >> struct kvm_vcpu {
> >> struct kvm *kvm;
> >> + struct list_head list;
> >> #ifdef CONFIG_PREEMPT_NOTIFIERS
> >> struct preempt_notifier preempt_notifier;
> >> #endif
> >> @@ -251,12 +252,14 @@ struct kvm {
> >> struct
2011/12/27 Takuya Yoshikawa :
> (2011/12/27 17:38), Liu Ping Fan wrote:
>> From: Liu Ping Fan
>>
>> Currently, vcpu can be destructed only when kvm instance destroyed.
>> Change this to vcpu's destruction before kvm instance, so vcpu MUST
>> and CAN be destroyed before kvm's destroy.
>
> I really d
(2011/12/27 17:38), Liu Ping Fan wrote:
> From: Liu Ping Fan
>
> Currently, vcpu can be destructed only when kvm instance destroyed.
> Change this to vcpu's destruction before kvm instance, so vcpu MUST
> and CAN be destroyed before kvm's destroy.
I really don't understand why this big change can
11 matches
Mail list logo
