Re: [PATCH 4/5] KVM: cpu hotplug support

From: Avi Kivity
Date: Wed Jan 31 2007 - 06:05:01 EST


Ingo Molnar wrote:
* Andrew Morton <akpm@xxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Tue, 30 Jan 2007 14:56:16 -0000
Avi Kivity <avi@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

+static void decache_vcpus_on_cpu(int cpu)
+{
+ struct kvm *vm;
+ struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu;
+ int i;
+
+ spin_lock(&kvm_lock);
+ list_for_each_entry(vm, &vm_list, vm_list)
+ for (i = 0; i < KVM_MAX_VCPUS; ++i) {
+ vcpu = &vm->vcpus[i];
+ /*
+ * If the vcpu is locked, then it is running on some
+ * other cpu and therefore it is not cached on the
+ * cpu in question.
+ *
+ * If it's not locked, check the last cpu it executed
+ * on.
+ */
+ if (mutex_trylock(&vcpu->mutex)) {
+ if (vcpu->cpu == cpu) {
+ kvm_arch_ops->vcpu_decache(vcpu);
+ vcpu->cpu = -1;
+ }
+ mutex_unlock(&vcpu->mutex);
+ }
+ }
+ spin_unlock(&kvm_lock);
+}
The trylock is unpleasing. Perhaps kvm_lock should be a mutex or something?

this is a special case. The vcpu->mutex acts as a 'this vcpu is running right now' flag as well - hence the trylock signals: is it running right now or not - if it's not running we do not have to 'decache' it. But i agree and i already suggested to Avi to change kvm_lock to be a mutex - but this wont change the trylock.

To elaborate a little: replacing mutex_trylock() with mutex_lock() will cause unbounded latency as we wait for the vcpu to be descheduled. In this case, we're only interested in descheduled vcpus, so there's no need to wait.

kvm is a bit funny in how it likes to pin cpus.

--
error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function

-
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/