On Wed, 4 Jul 2012 23:37:46 -0300, Marcelo Tosatti mtosa...@redhat.com wrote:
On Tue, Jul 03, 2012 at 01:55:02PM +0530, Nikunj A Dadhania wrote:
On Tue, 3 Jul 2012 05:07:13 -0300, Marcelo Tosatti mtosa...@redhat.com
wrote:
On Mon, Jun 04, 2012 at 10:38:17AM +0530, Nikunj A. Dadhania
On Tue, Jul 03, 2012 at 01:55:02PM +0530, Nikunj A Dadhania wrote:
On Tue, 3 Jul 2012 05:07:13 -0300, Marcelo Tosatti mtosa...@redhat.com
wrote:
On Mon, Jun 04, 2012 at 10:38:17AM +0530, Nikunj A. Dadhania wrote:
In place of looping continuously introduce a halt if we do not succeed
On Mon, Jun 04, 2012 at 10:38:17AM +0530, Nikunj A. Dadhania wrote:
In place of looping continuously introduce a halt if we do not succeed
after some time.
For vcpus that were running an IPI is sent. In case, it went to sleep
between this, we will be doing flush_on_enter(harmless). But as a
On Tue, 3 Jul 2012 05:07:13 -0300, Marcelo Tosatti mtosa...@redhat.com wrote:
On Mon, Jun 04, 2012 at 10:38:17AM +0530, Nikunj A. Dadhania wrote:
In place of looping continuously introduce a halt if we do not succeed
after some time.
For vcpus that were running an IPI is sent. In case,
In place of looping continuously introduce a halt if we do not succeed
after some time.
For vcpus that were running an IPI is sent. In case, it went to sleep
between this, we will be doing flush_on_enter(harmless). But as a
flush IPI was already sent, that will be processed in ipi handler,
this
