On Wed, Apr 14, 2010 at 10:14:29AM +0800, Xiao Guangrong wrote:
Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
On Tue, Apr 13, 2010 at 09:34:14AM +0800, Xiao Guangrong wrote:
Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
@@ -1483,8 +1483,8 @@ static int mmu_zap_unsync_children(struct kvm *kvm,
On Tue, Apr 13, 2010 at 09:34:14AM +0800, Xiao Guangrong wrote:
Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
@@ -1483,8 +1483,8 @@ static int mmu_zap_unsync_children(struct kvm *kvm,
for_each_sp(pages, sp, parents, i) {
kvm_mmu_zap_page(kvm, sp);
- calculate zapped page number properly in mmu_zap_unsync_children()
- calculate freeed page number properly kvm_mmu_change_mmu_pages()
- restart list walking if have children page zapped
Signed-off-by: Xiao Guangrong xiaoguangr...@cn.fujitsu.com
---
arch/x86/kvm/mmu.c |7 ---
1 files
On 04/12/2010 11:01 AM, Xiao Guangrong wrote:
- calculate zapped page number properly in mmu_zap_unsync_children()
- calculate freeed page number properly kvm_mmu_change_mmu_pages()
- restart list walking if have children page zapped
Signed-off-by: Xiao Guangrongxiaoguangr...@cn.fujitsu.com
---
Avi Kivity wrote:
kvm-arch.n_free_mmu_pages = 0;
@@ -1589,7 +1589,8 @@ static void mmu_unshadow(struct kvm *kvm, gfn_t
gfn)
!sp-role.invalid) {
pgprintk(%s: zap %lx %x\n,
__func__, gfn, sp-role.word);
-
On 04/12/2010 11:53 AM, Xiao Guangrong wrote:
kvm-arch.n_free_mmu_pages = 0;
@@ -1589,7 +1589,8 @@ static void mmu_unshadow(struct kvm *kvm, gfn_t
gfn)
!sp-role.invalid) {
pgprintk(%s: zap %lx %x\n,
__func__, gfn, sp-role.word);
-
Hi Avi,
Avi Kivity wrote:
hlist_for_each_entry_safe() is supposed to be be safe against removal of
the element that is pointed to by the iteration cursor.
If we destroyed the next point, hlist_for_each_entry_safe() is unsafe.
List hlist_for_each_entry_safe()'s code:
|#define
On 04/12/2010 12:22 PM, Xiao Guangrong wrote:
Hi Avi,
Avi Kivity wrote:
hlist_for_each_entry_safe() is supposed to be be safe against removal of
the element that is pointed to by the iteration cursor.
If we destroyed the next point, hlist_for_each_entry_safe() is unsafe.
List
Avi Kivity wrote:
On 04/12/2010 12:22 PM, Xiao Guangrong wrote:
Hi Avi,
Avi Kivity wrote:
But kvm_mmu_zap_page() will only destroy sp == tpos == pos; n points at
pos-next already, so it's safe.
kvm_mmu_zap_page(sp) not only zaps sp but also zaps all sp's unsync children
pages, if n is
On 04/12/2010 03:22 PM, Xiao Guangrong wrote:
But kvm_mmu_zap_page() will only destroy sp == tpos == pos; n points at
pos-next already, so it's safe.
kvm_mmu_zap_page(sp) not only zaps sp but also zaps all sp's unsync children
pages, if n is just sp's unsyc child, just at the same
On Mon, Apr 12, 2010 at 04:01:09PM +0800, Xiao Guangrong wrote:
- calculate zapped page number properly in mmu_zap_unsync_children()
- calculate freeed page number properly kvm_mmu_change_mmu_pages()
- restart list walking if have children page zapped
Signed-off-by: Xiao Guangrong
11 matches
Mail list logo
