On 11/19/2015 09:33 PM, Bharata B Rao wrote: > On Thu, Nov 19, 2015 at 10:10:06AM -0500, Matthew Rosato wrote: >> From: Gu Zheng <guz.f...@cn.fujitsu.com> >> >> In order to deal well with the kvm vcpus (which can not be removed without >> any >> protection), we do not close KVM vcpu fd, just record and mark it as stopped >> into a list, so that we can reuse it for the appending cpu hot-add request if >> possible. It is also the approach that kvm guys suggested: >> https://www.mail-archive.com/kvm@vger.kernel.org/msg102839.html >> >> Signed-off-by: Chen Fan <chen.fan.f...@cn.fujitsu.com> >> Signed-off-by: Gu Zheng <guz.f...@cn.fujitsu.com> >> Signed-off-by: Zhu Guihua <zhugh.f...@cn.fujitsu.com> >> Signed-off-by: Bharata B Rao <bhar...@linux.vnet.ibm.com> >> [Explicit CPU_REMOVE() from qemu_kvm/tcg_destroy_vcpu() >> isn't needed as it is done from cpu_exec_exit()] > > I didn't look very closely but the patch that removes cpu from the list > from cpu_exec_exit() isn't part of this series. The above change requires > > https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel/2015-08/msg00656.html > > I have just cleaned that patch a bit and will be posting early next > week with another patch that does CPU vmstate unregistration too from > cpu_exec_exit(). I think since we do vmstate registration from cpu_exec_init() > it makes sense to do unregistration from cpu_exec_exit() instead of > archs doing it themselves. I had a version of this at > > https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel/2015-08/msg00649.html > > With the above patch, you woudn't need 7/9 in this series. >
Hi Bharata -- Looking at the mailing list discussion from your patch set, I got the impression that handling this in cpu_exec_exit() might not be acceptable for all architectures. So, my patch just tries to handle the s390 case in patch 7/9, doing list removal and vmstate unregistration. FWIW, the 2 patches you referenced would be fine for s390, so if you can get those approved I'd have no problem dropping 7/9 in favor of your patches. Matt
