On Fri, 2016-05-20 at 16:53 +0800, Feng Wu wrote:
> We need to make sure the bocking vcpu is not in any per-cpu blocking
> list
> when the associated domain is going to be destroyed.
>
> Signed-off-by: Feng Wu <feng...@intel.com>
> ---
>
> --- a/xen/arch/x86/hvm/vmx/vmx.c
> +++ b/xen/arch/x86/hvm/vmx/vmx.c
> @@ -248,6 +248,36 @@ void vmx_pi_hooks_deassign(struct domain *d)
> d->arch.hvm_domain.vmx.pi_switch_to = NULL;
> }
>
> +static void vmx_pi_blocking_list_cleanup(struct domain *d)
> +{
> + unsigned int cpu;
> +
> + for_each_online_cpu ( cpu )
> + {
> + struct vcpu *v;
> + unsigned long flags;
> + struct arch_vmx_struct *vmx, *tmp;
> + spinlock_t *lock = &per_cpu(vmx_pi_blocking, cpu).lock;
> + struct list_head *blocked_vcpus = &per_cpu(vmx_pi_blocking,
> cpu).list;
> +
> + spin_lock_irqsave(lock, flags);
> +
> + list_for_each_entry_safe(vmx, tmp, blocked_vcpus,
> pi_blocking.list)
> + {
> + v = container_of(vmx, struct vcpu, arch.hvm_vmx);
> +
> + if (v->domain == d)
> + {
> + list_del(&vmx->pi_blocking.list);
> + ASSERT(vmx->pi_blocking.lock == lock);
> + vmx->pi_blocking.lock = NULL;
> + }
> + }
> +
> + spin_unlock_irqrestore(lock, flags);
> + }
>
So, I'm probably missing something very ver basic, but I don't see
what's the reason why we need this loop... can't we arrange for
checkinglist_empty(&v->arch.hvm_vmx.pi_blocking.list) ? :-O Regards, Dario -- <<This happens because I choose it to happen!>> (Raistlin Majere) ----------------------------------------------------------------- Dario Faggioli, Ph.D, http://about.me/dario.faggioli Senior Software Engineer, Citrix Systems R&D Ltd., Cambridge (UK)
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
_______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xen.org http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
