On 11/21/2017 01:22 PM, Jan Beulich wrote: >>>> On 09.11.17 at 15:49, <jbeul...@suse.com> wrote: >> See the code comment being added for why we need this. >> >> Reported-by: Igor Druzhinin <igor.druzhi...@citrix.com> >> Signed-off-by: Jan Beulich <jbeul...@suse.com> > > I realize we aren't settled yet on where to put the sync call. The > discussion appears to have stalled, though. Just to recap, > alternatives to the placement below are > - at the top of complete_domain_destroy(), being the specific > RCU callback exhibiting the problem (others are unlikely to > touch guest state) > - in rcu_do_batch(), paralleling the similar call from > do_tasklet_work()
I read through the discussion yesterday without digging into the code. At the moment, I'd say that specific code needing to touch potentially non-sync'd state should be marked to sync it, rather than syncing it all the time. But I don't have a strong opinion (particularly as I haven't dug into the code). -George _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xen.org https://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
