On 08/07/2013 09:09 PM, Takuya Yoshikawa wrote: > On Tue, 30 Jul 2013 21:02:08 +0800 > Xiao Guangrong <[email protected]> wrote: > >> @@ -2342,6 +2358,13 @@ static void kvm_mmu_commit_zap_page(struct kvm *kvm, >> */ >> kvm_flush_remote_tlbs(kvm); >> >> + if (kvm->arch.rcu_free_shadow_page) { >> + sp = list_first_entry(invalid_list, struct kvm_mmu_page, link); >> + list_del_init(invalid_list); >> + call_rcu(&sp->rcu, free_pages_rcu); >> + return; >> + } >> + >> list_for_each_entry_safe(sp, nsp, invalid_list, link) { >> WARN_ON(!sp->role.invalid || sp->root_count); >> kvm_mmu_free_page(sp); > > Shouldn't we avoid calling call_rcu() when we are holding mmu_lock?
Using call_rcu() to free pages is a rare case that happen only between lockless write-protection and zapping shadow pages, so i think we do not need to care this case too much. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
