>>> On 11.04.18 at 13:02, <george.dun...@citrix.com> wrote:
> On 04/11/2018 11:17 AM, Dario Faggioli wrote:
>> On Wed, 2018-04-11 at 12:00 +0200, Olaf Hering wrote:
>>> On Wed, Apr 11, Dario Faggioli wrote:
>>>> Olaf, can you give it a try? It should be fine to run it on top of
>>>> the
>>>> last debug patch (the one that produced this crash).
>>> Yes, with both changes it did >4k iterations already. Thanks.
>> That's great to hear! :-D
>> Now, I think I'll submit it as a proper patch in the variant that
>> Juergen suggested, and that I also were thinking to use.
>> George, any opinion? I'm going somewhere now. If I don't hear any
>> pushback, I'll do that as soon as back.
> I think for simplicity / reliability of backporting, we should start
> with a patch like the one you gave to Olaf (i.e., adding the "missing"
> vcpu_sleep_nosync()).

Not sure - I've fallen into pitfalls like this a couple of times recently.
If backports didn't move the call into vcpu_migrate(), and later we'd
add a new call to that function somewhere else, a backport thereof
would have basically no chance of noticing that a call to
vcpu_sleep_nosync() would need to be added as well.


Xen-devel mailing list

Reply via email to