Paolo Bonzini <pbonz...@redhat.com> writes: > On 12/01/2016 17:32, Alex Bennée wrote: >>> I need to look at the branch... The latest version I have here does >>> not require tb_lock taken in tb_invalidate_phys_range. >> >> The tb_locks asserts where added in Fred's branch which makes sense as >> we are going to mess with the translation block cache. Looking more >> closely at tb_invalidate_phys_page_range I see it jumps through some >> hoops when cpu == current_cpu == NULL. > > Does tb_invalidate_phys_page_range not take tb_lock itself?
You are right, I missed that when looking at the original code. I think Fred was trying to push some of the locks up in his WIP branch causing these problems. I'll wait until his more complete branch is out. > > Paolo -- Alex Bennée
