On Fri, Aug 17, 2018 at 19:53:40 +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> On 15/08/2018 02:34, Emilio G. Cota wrote:
> > On Tue, Aug 14, 2018 at 08:26:54 +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> >> On 13/08/2018 18:38, Emilio G. Cota wrote:
> >>> Fix it by implementing the CPU list as an RCU QLIST. This requires
> >>> a
On 15/08/2018 02:34, Emilio G. Cota wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 14, 2018 at 08:26:54 +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>> On 13/08/2018 18:38, Emilio G. Cota wrote:
>>> Fix it by implementing the CPU list as an RCU QLIST. This requires
>>> a little bit of extra work to insert CPUs at the tail of
>>> the list an
On Tue, Aug 14, 2018 at 08:26:54 +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> On 13/08/2018 18:38, Emilio G. Cota wrote:
> > Fix it by implementing the CPU list as an RCU QLIST. This requires
> > a little bit of extra work to insert CPUs at the tail of
> > the list and to iterate over the list in reverse order (s
On 13/08/2018 18:38, Emilio G. Cota wrote:
>
> Fix it by implementing the CPU list as an RCU QLIST. This requires
> a little bit of extra work to insert CPUs at the tail of
> the list and to iterate over the list in reverse order (see previous patch).
>
> One might be tempted to just insert new C
Iterating over the list without using atomics is undefined behaviour,
since the list can be modified concurrently by other threads (e.g.
every time a new thread is created in user-mode).
Fix it by implementing the CPU list as an RCU QLIST. This requires
a little bit of extra work to insert CPUs at
