lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2011]   [Dec]   [5]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: [PATCH] kvm: make vcpu life cycle separated from kvm instance
    On Mon, Dec 05, 2011 at 11:58:56AM +0200, Avi Kivity wrote:
    > On 12/05/2011 11:42 AM, Gleb Natapov wrote:
    > > On Mon, Dec 05, 2011 at 11:30:51AM +0200, Avi Kivity wrote:
    > > > On 12/05/2011 07:29 AM, Liu ping fan wrote:
    > > > > like this,
    > > > > #define kvm_for_each_vcpu(idx, cnt, vcpup, kvm) \
    > > > > for (idx = 0, cnt = 0, vcpup = kvm_get_vcpu(kvm, idx); \
    > > > > cnt < atomic_read(&kvm->online_vcpus) && \
    > > > > idx < KVM_MAX_VCPUS; \
    > > > > idx++, (vcpup == NULL)?:cnt++, vcpup = kvm_get_vcpu(kvm, idx)) \
    > > > > if (vcpup == NULL) \
    > > > > continue; \
    > > > > else
    > > > >
    > > > >
    > > > > A little ugly, but have not thought a better way out :-)
    > > > >
    > > >
    > > > #define kvm_for_each_vcpu(vcpu, it) for (vcpu = kvm_fev_init(&it); vcpu;
    > > > vcpu = kvm_fev_next(&it, vcpu))
    > > >
    > > > Though that doesn't give a good place for rcu_read_unlock().
    > > >
    > > >
    > > Why not use rculist to store vcpus and use list_for_each_entry_rcu()?
    >
    > We can, but that's a bigger change.
    >
    Is it? I do not see a lot of accesses to vcpu array except those loops.

    --
    Gleb.


    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2011-12-05 11:21    [W:2.645 / U:0.048 seconds]
    ©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site