On Tue, 30 Jan 2007 14:56:16 -0000
Avi Kivity <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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?


-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT
Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share your
opinions on IT & business topics through brief surveys - and earn cash
http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=join.php&p=sourceforge&CID=DEVDEV
_______________________________________________
kvm-devel mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/kvm-devel

Reply via email to