On Tue, Apr 22, 2008 at 09:20:26AM +0200, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
> invalidate_range_start {
> spin_lock(&kvm->mmu_lock);
>
> kvm->invalidate_range_count++;
> rmap-invalidate of sptes in range
>
write_seqlock; write_sequnlock;
> spin_unlock(&kvm->mmu_lock)
> }
>
> invalidate_range_end {
> spin_lock(&kvm->mmu_lock);
>
> kvm->invalidate_range_count--;
write_seqlock; write_sequnlock;
>
> spin_unlock(&kvm->mmu_lock)
> }
Robin correctly pointed out by PM there should be a seqlock in
range_begin/end too like corrected above.
I guess it's better to use an explicit sequence counter so we avoid an
useless spinlock of the write_seqlock (mmu_lock is enough already in
all places) and so we can increase it with a single op with +=2 in the
range_begin/end. The above is a lower-perf version of the final
locking but simpler for reading purposes.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by the 2008 JavaOne(SM) Conference
Don't miss this year's exciting event. There's still time to save $100.
Use priority code J8TL2D2.
http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;198757673;13503038;p?http://java.sun.com/javaone
_______________________________________________
kvm-devel mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/kvm-devel
