Re: [PATCH] xen: privcmd: schedule() after private hypercall when non CONFIG_PREEMPT

From: "Luis R. Rodriguez" <mcgrof@do-not-panic.com>
To: Juergen Gross <jgross@suse.com>
Cc: "Luis R. Rodriguez" <mcgrof@do-not-panic.com>,
	David Vrabel <david.vrabel@citrix.com>,
	Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@oracle.com>,
	boris.ostrovsky@oracle.com, xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org,
	"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	x86@kernel.org, kvm@vger.kernel.org,
	Davidlohr Bueso <dbueso@suse.de>, Joerg Roedel <jroedel@suse.de>,
	Borislav Petkov <bp@suse.de>, Jan Beulich <JBeulich@suse.com>,
	Olaf Hering <ohering@suse.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] xen: privcmd: schedule() after private hypercall when non CONFIG_PREEMPT
Date: Thu, 27 Nov 2014 13:46:34 -0500	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAB=NE6Xt3QhuKvUm-+-iD4pThsmLZ7oq1nnQbL0Hcw8Q0fpEqw@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20141127183616.GV25677@wotan.suse.de>

On Thu, Nov 27, 2014 at 1:36 PM, Luis R. Rodriguez <mcgrof@suse.com> wrote:
> I'm afraid we don't have much leg room.

Let me be clear, I still think putting some hypercalls in process
context *might help* but because of notes 1) and 2) I highlighted I
think this is the best we can do, with more information we should be
able to consider weighing pros / cons with actual metrics from
alternatives, without more information we're just shooting in the dark
and the last thing I want is to see APIs abused or setting precedents.

  Luis