On Wed, Apr 14, 2010 at 10:14:29AM +0800, Xiao Guangrong wrote:
>
>
> Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
> > On Tue, Apr 13, 2010 at 09:34:14AM +0800, Xiao Guangrong wrote:
> >>
> >> Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
> >>
> >>>> @@ -1483,8 +1483,8 @@ static int mmu_zap_unsync_children(struct kvm *kvm,
> >>>> for_each_sp(pages, sp, parents, i) {
> >>>> kvm_mmu_zap_page(kvm, sp);
> >>>> mmu_pages_clear_parents(&parents);
> >>>> + zapped++;
> >>>> }
> >>>> - zapped += pages.nr;
> >>>> kvm_mmu_pages_init(parent, &parents, &pages);
> >>>> }
> >>> Don't see why this is needed? The for_each_sp loop uses pvec.nr.
> >> I think mmu_zap_unsync_children() should return the number of zapped pages
> >> then we
> >> can adjust the number of free pages in kvm_mmu_change_mmu_pages(), but
> >> pages.nr no
> >> only includes the unsync/zapped pages but also includes their parents.
> >
> > Oh i see. I think its safer to check for list_empty then to rely on
> > proper accounting there, like __kvm_mmu_free_some_pages does.
>
> Do you mean that we'd better add WARN_ON(list_empty()) code in
> kvm_mmu_zap_page()?
Just break out of the loop if
list_empty(&vcpu->kvm->arch.active_mmu_pages).
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
