From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: David Vrabel Subject: Re: [PATCH] gnttab: lock the left grant table earlier in __gnttab_unmap_common() Date: Mon, 11 Nov 2013 10:53:23 +0000 Message-ID: <5280B723.5060904@citrix.com> References: <1384135642-26301-1-git-send-email-msw@linux.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from mail6.bemta4.messagelabs.com ([85.158.143.247]) by lists.xen.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1Vfp7X-00045p-Oe for xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org; Mon, 11 Nov 2013 10:53:27 +0000 In-Reply-To: <1384135642-26301-1-git-send-email-msw@linux.com> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org To: Matt Wilson Cc: Keir Fraser , Matt Wilson , Andrew Cooper , Jan Beulich , Anthony Liguori , xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org On 11/11/13 02:07, Matt Wilson wrote: > From: Matt Wilson > > Luckily today maptrack_limit never shrinks. But if at some point in > the future this were to change, checking maptrack_limit without > holding the grant table spinlock would no longer be safe. I don't think we should extend region the grant table lock protects if it's not needed since we know this lock is heavily contended. Also, doesn't the 'l' and 'r' prefixes mean 'local' and 'remote' not 'left' and 'right'? David