[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH RFC V10 15/18] kvm : Paravirtual ticketlocks support for linux guests running on KVM hypervisor
- To: Gleb Natapov <gleb@xxxxxxxxxx>
- From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 16 Jul 2013 17:48:52 +0200
- Cc: jeremy@xxxxxxxx, x86@xxxxxxxxxx, kvm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, linux-doc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, drjones@xxxxxxxxxx, virtualization@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, andi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx, hpa@xxxxxxxxx, stefano.stabellini@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, Raghavendra K T <raghavendra.kt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, agraf@xxxxxxx, mingo@xxxxxxxxxx, habanero@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, ouyang@xxxxxxxxxxx, mtosatti@xxxxxxxxxx, avi.kivity@xxxxxxxxx, tglx@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, chegu_vinod@xxxxxx, gregkh@xxxxxxx, linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, srivatsa.vaddagiri@xxxxxxxxx, attilio.rao@xxxxxxxxxx, pbonzini@xxxxxxxxxx, torvalds@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, stephan.diestelhorst@xxxxxxx
- Delivery-date: Tue, 16 Jul 2013 15:50:56 +0000
- List-id: Xen developer discussion <xen-devel.lists.xen.org>
On Tue, Jul 16, 2013 at 09:02:15AM +0300, Gleb Natapov wrote:
> BTW can NMI handler take spinlocks?
No -- that is, yes you can using trylock, but you still shouldn't.
> If it can what happens if NMI is
> delivered in a section protected by local_irq_save()/local_irq_restore()?
You deadlock.
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
|
