From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Avi Kivity Subject: Re: [PATCH v6] kvm: make vcpu life cycle separated from kvm instance Date: Thu, 29 Dec 2011 16:31:09 +0200 Message-ID: <4EFC79AD.3090104@redhat.com> References: <1324091975-20930-1-git-send-email-kernelfans@gmail.com> <1324975139-8836-1-git-send-email-kernelfans@gmail.com> <4EF9AA59.7050003@oss.ntt.co.jp> <4EFAE705.6070202@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Takuya Yoshikawa , kvm@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, aliguori@us.ibm.com, gleb@redhat.com, mtosatti@redhat.com, xiaoguangrong.eric@gmail.com, jan.kiszka@web.de, Takuya Yoshikawa To: Liu ping fan Return-path: In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: kvm.vger.kernel.org On 12/29/2011 04:03 PM, Liu ping fan wrote: > > Why do we want an independent grace period, is hotunplugging a vcpu that > > much different from hotunplugging memory? > > > I thought that if less readers on the same srcu lock, then > synchronize_srcu_expedited() may success to return more quickly. It would be good to measure it, otherwise it's premature optimization. -- error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function