On Wed, 4 Jul 2012 23:37:46 -0300, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 03, 2012 at 01:55:02PM +0530, Nikunj A Dadhania wrote:
> > On Tue, 3 Jul 2012 05:07:13 -0300, Marcelo Tosatti
> > wrote:
> > > On Mon, Jun 04, 2012 at 10:38:17AM +0530, Nikunj A. Dadhania wrote:
> > > > In place of looping c
On Tue, Jul 03, 2012 at 01:55:02PM +0530, Nikunj A Dadhania wrote:
> On Tue, 3 Jul 2012 05:07:13 -0300, Marcelo Tosatti
> wrote:
> > On Mon, Jun 04, 2012 at 10:38:17AM +0530, Nikunj A. Dadhania wrote:
> > > In place of looping continuously introduce a halt if we do not succeed
> > > after some ti
On Tue, 3 Jul 2012 05:07:13 -0300, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 04, 2012 at 10:38:17AM +0530, Nikunj A. Dadhania wrote:
> > In place of looping continuously introduce a halt if we do not succeed
> > after some time.
> >
> > For vcpus that were running an IPI is sent. In case, it went to
On Mon, Jun 04, 2012 at 10:38:17AM +0530, Nikunj A. Dadhania wrote:
> In place of looping continuously introduce a halt if we do not succeed
> after some time.
>
> For vcpus that were running an IPI is sent. In case, it went to sleep
> between this, we will be doing flush_on_enter(harmless). But
In place of looping continuously introduce a halt if we do not succeed
after some time.
For vcpus that were running an IPI is sent. In case, it went to sleep
between this, we will be doing flush_on_enter(harmless). But as a
flush IPI was already sent, that will be processed in ipi handler,
this m
