From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:54596) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1adYzr-0000eV-DF for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 09 Mar 2016 02:57:32 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1adYzq-00061H-Dg for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 09 Mar 2016 02:57:31 -0500 Received: from e28smtp08.in.ibm.com ([125.16.236.8]:45978) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1adYzp-00060q-NB for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 09 Mar 2016 02:57:30 -0500 Received: from localhost by e28smtp08.in.ibm.com with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted for from ; Wed, 9 Mar 2016 13:27:24 +0530 Date: Wed, 9 Mar 2016 13:27:10 +0530 From: Bharata B Rao Message-ID: <20160309075710.GE29692@in.ibm.com> References: <1457074461-14285-1-git-send-email-bharata@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <1457074461-14285-2-git-send-email-bharata@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <56DDAB14.8020507@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <56DDAB14.8020507@redhat.com> Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [RFC PATCH v1 01/10] exec: Remove cpu from cpus list during cpu_exec_exit() Reply-To: bharata@linux.vnet.ibm.com List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Thomas Huth Cc: mjrosato@linux.vnet.ibm.com, agraf@suse.de, pkrempa@redhat.com, ehabkost@redhat.com, aik@ozlabs.ru, qemu-devel@nongnu.org, armbru@redhat.com, borntraeger@de.ibm.com, qemu-ppc@nongnu.org, pbonzini@redhat.com, imammedo@redhat.com, mdroth@linux.vnet.ibm.com, afaerber@suse.de, david@gibson.dropbear.id.au On Mon, Mar 07, 2016 at 05:23:48PM +0100, Thomas Huth wrote: > On 04.03.2016 07:54, Bharata B Rao wrote: > > CPUState *cpu gets added to the cpus list during cpu_exec_init(). It > > should be removed from cpu_exec_exit(). > > > > cpu_exec_init() is called from generic CPU::instance_finalize and some > > s/cpu_exec_init/cpu_exec_exit/ > > > archs like PowerPC call it from CPU unrealizefn. So ensure that we > > dequeue the cpu only once. > > > > Now -1 value for cpu->cpu_index indicates that we have already dequeued > > the cpu for CONFIG_USER_ONLY case also. > > > > Signed-off-by: Bharata B Rao > > --- > > exec.c | 32 ++++++++++++++++++++++++-------- > > 1 file changed, 24 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/exec.c b/exec.c > > index c62c439..7c3f747 100644 > > --- a/exec.c > > +++ b/exec.c > > @@ -588,15 +588,9 @@ static int cpu_get_free_index(Error **errp) > > return cpu; > > } > > > > -void cpu_exec_exit(CPUState *cpu) > > +static void cpu_release_index(CPUState *cpu) > > { > > - if (cpu->cpu_index == -1) { > > - /* cpu_index was never allocated by this @cpu or was already freed. */ > > - return; > > - } > > - > > bitmap_clear(cpu_index_map, cpu->cpu_index, 1); > > - cpu->cpu_index = -1; > > } > > #else > > > > @@ -611,11 +605,33 @@ static int cpu_get_free_index(Error **errp) > > return cpu_index; > > } > > > > -void cpu_exec_exit(CPUState *cpu) > > +static void cpu_release_index(CPUState *cpu) > > { > > + return; > > You could also simply leave that return statement away, I think. > > > } > > #endif > > > > +void cpu_exec_exit(CPUState *cpu) > > +{ > > +#if defined(CONFIG_USER_ONLY) > > + cpu_list_lock(); > > +#endif > > + if (cpu->cpu_index == -1) { > > + /* cpu_index was never allocated by this @cpu or was already freed. */ > > +#if defined(CONFIG_USER_ONLY) > > + cpu_list_unlock(); > > +#endif > > + return; > > + } > > + > > + QTAILQ_REMOVE(&cpus, cpu, node); > > + cpu_release_index(cpu); > > + cpu->cpu_index = -1; > > +#if defined(CONFIG_USER_ONLY) > > + cpu_list_unlock(); > > +#endif > > +} > > Since there are a couple of these > > #if defined(CONFIG_USER_ONLY) > cpu_list_[un]lock(); > #endif > > in exec.c already, it might be somewhat nices to declare them at the > beginning of the file as empty functions, somewhat like: > > #if !defined(CONFIG_USER_ONLY) > static inline void cpu_list_lock(void) > { > } > static inline void cpu_list_unlock(void) > { > } > #endif > > What do you think about that? If you and/or the maintainer insist/prefer, I can make the change. Regards, Bharata.