On 29.03.2021 17:04, Boris Ostrovsky wrote:
> On 3/29/21 5:56 AM, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> On 27.03.2021 02:51, Boris Ostrovsky wrote:
>>> @@ -580,13 +593,22 @@ static void pt_adjust_vcpu(struct periodic_time *pt,
>>> struct vcpu *v)
>>> return;
>>>
>>> write_lock(&pt->vcpu->domain->arch.hvm.pl_time->pt_migrate);
>>> +
>>> + pt_vcpu_lock(pt->vcpu);
>>> + if ( pt->on_list )
>>> + list_del(&pt->list);
>>> + pt_vcpu_unlock(pt->vcpu);
>> While these two obviously can't use v, ...
>>
>>> pt->vcpu = v;
>>> +
>>> + pt_vcpu_lock(pt->vcpu);
>>> if ( pt->on_list )
>>> {
>>> - list_del(&pt->list);
>>> list_add(&pt->list, &v->arch.hvm.tm_list);
>>> migrate_timer(&pt->timer, v->processor);
>>> }
>>> + pt_vcpu_unlock(pt->vcpu);
>> ... these two again could (and imo should), and ...
>>
>>> write_unlock(&pt->vcpu->domain->arch.hvm.pl_time->pt_migrate);
>> ... really this and its counterpart better would do so, too (albeit
>> perhaps in a separate patch).
>
>
> Are you suggesting to replace pt->vcpu with v here?
Yes.
> They are different at lock and unlock points (although they obviously point
> to the same domain).
Indeed, but all we care about is - as you say - the domain.
Jan
