George Dunlap
2009-Sep-22 12:44 UTC
[Xen-devel] [PATCH] Assert that the p2m lock is held in ept_sync_domain
Signed-off-by: George Dunlap <george.dunlap@eu.citrix.com> On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 10:17 AM, Keir Fraser <keir.fraser@eu.citrix.com> wrote:> On 22/09/2009 10:02, "Jan Beulich" <JBeulich@novell.com> wrote: > >>> Please see what you think of xen-unstable:20244. >> >> With no assertion in ept_sync_domain() on any locks held, is it guaranteed >> that the function cannot be entered twice at the same time for a given >> guest? If not, passing a pointer to the new ept_synced member isn''t any >> better than passing the one to domain_dirty_cpumask. > > I assume George is knowledgeable on that area. If calls to ept_sync_domain() > are not serialised then I think synchronisation around the > ept_needs_flush/ept_synced cpumask is indeed pretty suspect. If there isn''t > such a serialising lock, we could add one to ept_sync_domain() quite safely. > > -- Keir > > > > _______________________________________________ > Xen-devel mailing list > Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com > http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel >_______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel