On 12/16/2014 04:31 AM, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 15.12.14 at 23:24, wrote:
We need to make sure that last_vcpu is not pointing to VCPU whose
VPMU is being destroyed. Otherwise we may try to dereference it in
the future, when VCPU is gone.
We have to do this via IPI since otherwise there is a (som
>>> On 15.12.14 at 23:24, wrote:
> We need to make sure that last_vcpu is not pointing to VCPU whose
> VPMU is being destroyed. Otherwise we may try to dereference it in
> the future, when VCPU is gone.
>
> We have to do this via IPI since otherwise there is a (somewheat
> theoretical) chance tha
We need to make sure that last_vcpu is not pointing to VCPU whose
VPMU is being destroyed. Otherwise we may try to dereference it in
the future, when VCPU is gone.
We have to do this via IPI since otherwise there is a (somewheat
theoretical) chance that between test and subsequent clearing
of last
