On 05/18/2011 12:02 PM, Nadav Har'El wrote:
On Wed, May 18, 2011, Avi Kivity wrote about "Re: [PATCH 08/31] nVMX: Fix
local_vcpus_link handling":
> I did a quick audit and it seems fine. If it isn't, we'll fix it when
> we see the problem.
Ok, then, I'm working on the code with the new approach.
My fear was that some CPU 7 is taken down, but vcpu.cpu remains 7 (not set to
-1). If cpu 7 nevers comes up again, it's not a problem because when we run
the same vcpu again on a different cpu, it's not 7 so we do what needs to be
done on CPU switch. But, what if CPU 7 does come up again later, and we find
ourselves running again on CPU 7, but it's not the same CPU 7 and we don't
know it? Is this case at all possible?
It's certainly possible, but it's independent of this patch.
It's even handled, see kvm_arch_hardware_enable().
--
error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
