Re: [PATCH] Fix preemptible lazy mode bug

[Rusty Russell]

On Thu, 2007-08-23 at 23:59 -0700, Zachary Amsden wrote:
> Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote:
> > Hm.  Doing any kind of lazy-state operation with preemption enabled is
> > fundamentally meaningless.  How does it get into a preemptable state
> >   
> 
> Agree 100%.  It is the lazy mode flush that might happen when preempt is 
> enabled, but lazy mode is disabled.  In that case, the code relies on 
> per-cpu variables, which is a bad thing to do in preemtible code.  This 
> can happen in the current code path.

Frankly, we should hoist the per-cpu state into generic paravirt code,
get rid of the FLUSH "state" and only call the lazy_mode hooks when
actually entering or exiting a lazy mode.

The only reason lguest doesn't use a per-cpu var is that guests are
currently UP only.  If that were fixed, we'd have identical VMI, Xen and
lguest lazy state handing.

Cheers,
Rusty.


-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/