On Tue, Feb 02, 2016 at 08:55:50PM -0800, Andres Lagar Cavilla wrote:
> At the time, I had a patch queue for splitting the p2m locking into a tree
> of per-2M locks. Very similar to Linux's split locks. I scaffolded the
> macros to allow for that expansion. Then, I got pulled onto other things.
Co
At the time, I had a patch queue for splitting the p2m locking into a tree
of per-2M locks. Very similar to Linux's split locks. I scaffolded the
macros to allow for that expansion. Then, I got pulled onto other things.
Andres
On Tue, Feb 2, 2016 at 8:26 AM, Jan Beulich wrote:
> >>> On 02.02.16
>>> On 02.02.16 at 07:54, wrote:
> Hi all:
> In patch e1e40bccee7490a01ac7d1f759ec2bbafd3c7185, it says that"many
> routines can logically assert holding the p2m *FOR A SPECIFIC GFN.*" ,
> But I find out that it did nothing for locking a single gfn, in fact it
> still locked the entire p2m lis
Hi all:
In patch e1e40bccee7490a01ac7d1f759ec2bbafd3c7185, it says that"many routines
can logically assert holding the p2m *FOR A SPECIFIC GFN.*" ,
But I find out that it did nothing for locking a single gfn, in fact it still
locked the entire p2m list.
-#define p2m_lock_recursive(p) mm_lock_
