On Tue, Oct 08, 2013 at 10:47:30AM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> This series moves the icount state under the same seqlock as the "normal"
> vm_clock implementation.
>
> It is not yet 100% thread-safe, because the CPU list should be moved
> under RCU protection (due to the call to !all_cpu_threads
Il 08/10/2013 15:47, Andreas Färber ha scritto:
> Am 08.10.2013 10:47, schrieb Paolo Bonzini:
>> This series moves the icount state under the same seqlock as the "normal"
>> vm_clock implementation.
>>
>> It is not yet 100% thread-safe, because the CPU list should be moved
>> under RCU protection (
Am 08.10.2013 10:47, schrieb Paolo Bonzini:
> This series moves the icount state under the same seqlock as the "normal"
> vm_clock implementation.
>
> It is not yet 100% thread-safe, because the CPU list should be moved
> under RCU protection (due to the call to !all_cpu_threads_idle()
> in qemu_c
This series moves the icount state under the same seqlock as the "normal"
vm_clock implementation.
It is not yet 100% thread-safe, because the CPU list should be moved
under RCU protection (due to the call to !all_cpu_threads_idle()
in qemu_clock_warp). However it is a substantial step forward, t
