On Tue, Apr 22, 2008 at 09:20:26AM +0200, Andrea Arcangeli wrote: > invalidate_range_start { > spin_lock(&kvm->mmu_lock); > > kvm->invalidate_range_count++; > rmap-invalidate of sptes in range >
write_seqlock; write_sequnlock; > spin_unlock(&kvm->mmu_lock) > } > > invalidate_range_end { > spin_lock(&kvm->mmu_lock); > > kvm->invalidate_range_count--; write_seqlock; write_sequnlock; > > spin_unlock(&kvm->mmu_lock) > } Robin correctly pointed out by PM there should be a seqlock in range_begin/end too like corrected above. I guess it's better to use an explicit sequence counter so we avoid an useless spinlock of the write_seqlock (mmu_lock is enough already in all places) and so we can increase it with a single op with +=2 in the range_begin/end. The above is a lower-perf version of the final locking but simpler for reading purposes. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by the 2008 JavaOne(SM) Conference Don't miss this year's exciting event. There's still time to save $100. Use priority code J8TL2D2. http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;198757673;13503038;p?http://java.sun.com/javaone _______________________________________________ kvm-devel mailing list kvm-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/kvm-devel