From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Andrew Cooper Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/7] xen: sched: fix locking of remove_vcpu() in credit1 Date: Thu, 8 Oct 2015 14:16:38 +0100 Message-ID: <56166CB6.4070503@citrix.com> References: <20151008124027.12522.42552.stgit@Solace.station> <20151008125236.12522.7048.stgit@Solace.station> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from mail6.bemta3.messagelabs.com ([195.245.230.39]) by lists.xen.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1ZkB4E-0004E1-1q for xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org; Thu, 08 Oct 2015 13:17:06 +0000 In-Reply-To: <20151008125236.12522.7048.stgit@Solace.station> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org To: Dario Faggioli , xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org Cc: George Dunlap , Jan Beulich List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org On 08/10/15 13:52, Dario Faggioli wrote: > In fact, csched_vcpu_remove() (i.e., the credit1 > implementation of remove_vcpu()) manipulates runqueues, > so holding the runqueue lock is necessary. > > Also, while there, *_lock_irq() (for the private lock) is > enough, there is no need to *_lock_irqsave(). > > Signed-off-by: Dario Faggioli Reviewed-by: Andrew Cooper