>>> On 01.09.17 at 11:55, wrote:
On 01.09.17 at 10:37, wrote:
>> it seems add_sized() won't be a LOCKed instruction.
>> #define build_add_sized(name, size, type, reg) \
>> static inline void name(volatile type *addr, type val) \
>> {
>>> On 01.09.17 at 10:37, wrote:
> it seems add_sized() won't be a LOCKed instruction.
> #define build_add_sized(name, size, type, reg) \
> static inline void name(volatile type *addr, type val) \
> { \
>
On Fri, Sep 01, 2017 at 03:13:17AM -0600, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 01.09.17 at 09:55, wrote:
>> On Fri, Sep 01, 2017 at 02:24:08AM -0600, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> On 01.09.17 at 03:39, wrote:
After thinking it again, I want to define the counter as
a unsigned int variable for the fol
>>> On 01.09.17 at 09:55, wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 01, 2017 at 02:24:08AM -0600, Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 01.09.17 at 03:39, wrote:
>>> After thinking it again, I want to define the counter as
>>> a unsigned int variable for the following reasion:
>>> 1. It is definite that the counter is closely
On Fri, Sep 01, 2017 at 02:24:08AM -0600, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 01.09.17 at 03:39, wrote:
>> After thinking it again, I want to define the counter as
>> a unsigned int variable for the following reasion:
>> 1. It is definite that the counter is closely related with
>> list_add() and list_del(
>>> On 01.09.17 at 03:39, wrote:
> After thinking it again, I want to define the counter as
> a unsigned int variable for the following reasion:
> 1. It is definite that the counter is closely related with
> list_add() and list_del(). If the list is protected by the
> lock, it is straightforward t
On Thu, Aug 31, 2017 at 02:33:57AM -0600, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 31.08.17 at 09:15, wrote:
>> On Thu, Aug 31, 2017 at 01:42:53AM -0600, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> On 31.08.17 at 00:57, wrote:
On Wed, Aug 30, 2017 at 10:00:49AM -0600, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 16.08.17 at 07:14, wrot
On Thu, Aug 31, 2017 at 02:33:57AM -0600, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 31.08.17 at 09:15, wrote:
>> On Thu, Aug 31, 2017 at 01:42:53AM -0600, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> On 31.08.17 at 00:57, wrote:
On Wed, Aug 30, 2017 at 10:00:49AM -0600, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 16.08.17 at 07:14, wrot
>>> On 31.08.17 at 09:15, wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 31, 2017 at 01:42:53AM -0600, Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 31.08.17 at 00:57, wrote:
>>> On Wed, Aug 30, 2017 at 10:00:49AM -0600, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>> On 16.08.17 at 07:14, wrote:
> @@ -100,6 +101,24 @@ void vmx_pi_per_cpu_init(unsigned in
On Thu, Aug 31, 2017 at 01:42:53AM -0600, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 31.08.17 at 00:57, wrote:
>> On Wed, Aug 30, 2017 at 10:00:49AM -0600, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> On 16.08.17 at 07:14, wrote:
@@ -100,6 +101,24 @@ void vmx_pi_per_cpu_init(unsigned int cpu)
spin_lock_init(&per_cpu
>>> On 31.08.17 at 00:57, wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 30, 2017 at 10:00:49AM -0600, Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 16.08.17 at 07:14, wrote:
>>> @@ -100,6 +101,24 @@ void vmx_pi_per_cpu_init(unsigned int cpu)
>>> spin_lock_init(&per_cpu(vmx_pi_blocking, cpu).lock);
>>> }
>>>
>>> +static void vmx_pi
On Wed, Aug 30, 2017 at 10:00:49AM -0600, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 16.08.17 at 07:14, wrote:
>> @@ -100,6 +101,24 @@ void vmx_pi_per_cpu_init(unsigned int cpu)
>> spin_lock_init(&per_cpu(vmx_pi_blocking, cpu).lock);
>> }
>>
>> +static void vmx_pi_add_vcpu(struct pi_blocking_vcpu *pbv,
>>
>>> On 16.08.17 at 07:14, wrote:
> @@ -100,6 +101,24 @@ void vmx_pi_per_cpu_init(unsigned int cpu)
> spin_lock_init(&per_cpu(vmx_pi_blocking, cpu).lock);
> }
>
> +static void vmx_pi_add_vcpu(struct pi_blocking_vcpu *pbv,
> +struct vmx_pi_blocking_vcpu *vpbv)
> +
This patch adds a field, counter, in struct vmx_pi_blocking_vcpu to track
how many entries are on the pi blocking list.
Signed-off-by: Chao Gao
---
v5:
- introduce two functions for adding or removing vcpus from pi blocking list.
- check the sanity of vcpu count on pi blocking list
v4:
- non-t
14 matches
Mail list logo
