From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755581AbZGEKRM (ORCPT ); Sun, 5 Jul 2009 06:17:12 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751487AbZGEKRA (ORCPT ); Sun, 5 Jul 2009 06:17:00 -0400 Received: from mx2.redhat.com ([66.187.237.31]:33573 "EHLO mx2.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751221AbZGEKRA (ORCPT ); Sun, 5 Jul 2009 06:17:00 -0400 Date: Sun, 5 Jul 2009 13:16:24 +0300 From: "Michael S. Tsirkin" To: Avi Kivity Cc: Gregory Haskins , kvm@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, davidel@xmailserver.org Subject: Re: [KVM PATCH v9 0/5] irqfd fixes and enhancements Message-ID: <20090705101623.GA3014@redhat.com> References: <20090702153454.20186.99191.stgit@dev.haskins.net> <4A4CD729.6050300@redhat.com> <4A50723E.6030305@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4A50723E.6030305@redhat.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.19 (2009-01-05) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Sun, Jul 05, 2009 at 12:28:30PM +0300, Avi Kivity wrote: > On 07/02/2009 06:50 PM, Avi Kivity wrote: >> On 07/02/2009 06:37 PM, Gregory Haskins wrote: >>> (Applies to kvm.git/master:1f9050fd) >>> >>> The following is the latest attempt to fix the races in >>> irqfd/eventfd, as >>> well as restore DEASSIGN support. For more details, please read the >>> patch >>> headers. >>> >>> As always, this series has been tested against the kvm-eventfd unit test >>> and everything appears to be functioning properly. You can download this >>> test here: >> >> Applied, thanks. >> > > ... and unapplied. There's a refcounting mismatch in irqfd_cleanup: a > reference is taken for each irqfd, but dropped for each guest. This > causes an oops if a guest with no irqfds is created and destroyed: Ugh, apparently this logic has been changed between I acked v7 of the patches and between Avi applied v9. Will have to find the time to redo the review - or maybe just go back to v7? Is on-demand wq creation really that important? -- MST