Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 07 Feb 2012 13:37:18 +0900 | From | Takuya Yoshikawa <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH v8] kvm: make vcpu life cycle separated from kvm instance |
| |
(2012/02/07 11:34), Liu Ping Fan wrote:
> static int kvm_vcpu_release(struct inode *inode, struct file *filp)
Is this a hot path? If no, do you really need to pre-allocate the space for the next vcpus?
> { > + int i; > struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu = filp->private_data; > + struct kvm *kvm = vcpu->kvm; > + struct kvm_vcpu *vcpus_next; > + filp->private_data = NULL; > + > + for (i = 0; i< atomic_read(&kvm->online_vcpus); i++) { > + if (vcpu == kvm->vcpus+i) > + break; > + } > + mutex_lock(&kvm->lock); > + vcpus_next = kvm->vcpus_array + > + ((kvm->vcpus - kvm->vcpus_array) ? 0 : KVM_MAX_VCPUS); > + > + memset(vcpus_next, 0, KVM_MAX_VCPUS*sizeof(struct kvm_vcpu *)); > + memcpy(vcpus_next, kvm->vcpus, i*sizeof(struct kvm_vcpu *)); > + memcpy(vcpus_next+i, kvm->vcpus+i+1, > + (atomic_read(&kvm->online_vcpus)-i)*sizeof(struct kvm_vcpu *)); > + atomic_dec(&kvm->online_vcpus); > + /* Removed vcpu can not be seen from vcpus[] */
This comment is confusing.
> + rcu_assign_pointer(kvm->vcpus, vcpus_next); > + mutex_unlock(&kvm->lock); > + > + synchronize_rcu(); > > - kvm_put_kvm(vcpu->kvm); > + /* vcpu is out of list,drop it safely */
Ditto.
Do you mean something like "now that there is no reader of it we can safely free this" ?
(Please do not trust me: I am not a native English speaker as you know.)
> + kvm_vcpu_destruct(vcpu); > return 0; > }
Takuya
| |