From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Xiao Guangrong Subject: Re: [PATCH A] KVM: Simplify kvm->tlbs_dirty handling Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2014 17:43:24 +0800 Message-ID: <53032B3C.5000403@linux.vnet.ibm.com> References: <20140218172150.7723d3a5.yoshikawa_takuya_b1@lab.ntt.co.jp> <20140218172247.ca61f503.yoshikawa_takuya_b1@lab.ntt.co.jp> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: kvm@vger.kernel.org To: Takuya Yoshikawa , gleb@kernel.org, pbonzini@redhat.com Return-path: Received: from e28smtp05.in.ibm.com ([122.248.162.5]:36681 "EHLO e28smtp05.in.ibm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754714AbaBRJnd (ORCPT ); Tue, 18 Feb 2014 04:43:33 -0500 Received: from /spool/local by e28smtp05.in.ibm.com with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted for from ; Tue, 18 Feb 2014 15:13:29 +0530 Received: from d28relay02.in.ibm.com (d28relay02.in.ibm.com [9.184.220.59]) by d28dlp03.in.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A1941125805B for ; Tue, 18 Feb 2014 15:15:25 +0530 (IST) Received: from d28av05.in.ibm.com (d28av05.in.ibm.com [9.184.220.67]) by d28relay02.in.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id s1I9hKF05308894 for ; Tue, 18 Feb 2014 15:13:21 +0530 Received: from d28av05.in.ibm.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by d28av05.in.ibm.com (8.14.4/8.14.4/NCO v10.0 AVout) with ESMTP id s1I9hNjP003090 for ; Tue, 18 Feb 2014 15:13:24 +0530 In-Reply-To: <20140218172247.ca61f503.yoshikawa_takuya_b1@lab.ntt.co.jp> Sender: kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On 02/18/2014 04:22 PM, Takuya Yoshikawa wrote: > When this was introduced, kvm_flush_remote_tlbs() could be called > without holding mmu_lock. It is now acknowledged that the function > must be called before releasing mmu_lock, and all callers have already > been changed to do so. > I have already posted the patch to moving flush tlb out of mmu-lock when do dirty tracking: KVM: MMU: flush tlb out of mmu lock when write-protect the sptes Actually some patches (patch 1 - patch 4) in that patchset can be pickup-ed separately and i should apologize for the patchset was not updated for a long time since i was busy on other development. And moving tlb flush out of mmu-lock should be going on in the future, so i think the B patch is more acceptable.