| Message ID | 1563457031-21189-3-git-send-email-pbonzini@redhat.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New, archived |
| Headers | show |
| Series | Boost vCPUs that are ready to deliver interrupts | expand |
On 18.07.19 15:37, Paolo Bonzini wrote: > From: Wanpeng Li <wanpengli@tencent.com> > > Use kvm_vcpu_wake_up() in kvm_s390_vcpu_wakeup(). > > Suggested-by: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com> > Cc: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com> > Cc: Radim Krčmář <rkrcmar@redhat.com> > Cc: Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@de.ibm.com> > Signed-off-by: Wanpeng Li <wanpengli@tencent.com> > Signed-off-by: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com> > --- > v2->v3: no need to set vcpu->ready here > arch/s390/kvm/interrupt.c | 23 +++-------------------- > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 20 deletions(-) Reviewed-by: Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@de.ibm.com> > > diff --git a/arch/s390/kvm/interrupt.c b/arch/s390/kvm/interrupt.c > index 26f8bf4a22a7..b5fd6e85657c 100644 > --- a/arch/s390/kvm/interrupt.c > +++ b/arch/s390/kvm/interrupt.c > @@ -1224,28 +1224,11 @@ int kvm_s390_handle_wait(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu) > > void kvm_s390_vcpu_wakeup(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu) > { > - /* > - * We cannot move this into the if, as the CPU might be already > - * in kvm_vcpu_block without having the waitqueue set (polling) > - */ > vcpu->valid_wakeup = true; > + kvm_vcpu_wake_up(vcpu); > + > /* > - * This is mostly to document, that the read in swait_active could > - * be moved before other stores, leading to subtle races. > - * All current users do not store or use an atomic like update > - */ > - smp_mb__after_atomic(); > - if (swait_active(&vcpu->wq)) { > - /* > - * The vcpu gave up the cpu voluntarily, mark it as a good > - * yield-candidate. > - */ > - WRITE_ONCE(vcpu->ready, true); > - swake_up_one(&vcpu->wq); > - vcpu->stat.halt_wakeup++; > - } > - /* > - * The VCPU might not be sleeping but is executing the VSIE. Let's > + * The VCPU might not be sleeping but rather executing VSIE. Let's > * kick it, so it leaves the SIE to process the request. > */ > kvm_s390_vsie_kick(vcpu); >
diff --git a/arch/s390/kvm/interrupt.c b/arch/s390/kvm/interrupt.c index 26f8bf4a22a7..b5fd6e85657c 100644 --- a/arch/s390/kvm/interrupt.c +++ b/arch/s390/kvm/interrupt.c @@ -1224,28 +1224,11 @@ int kvm_s390_handle_wait(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu) void kvm_s390_vcpu_wakeup(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu) { - /* - * We cannot move this into the if, as the CPU might be already - * in kvm_vcpu_block without having the waitqueue set (polling) - */ vcpu->valid_wakeup = true; + kvm_vcpu_wake_up(vcpu); + /* - * This is mostly to document, that the read in swait_active could - * be moved before other stores, leading to subtle races. - * All current users do not store or use an atomic like update - */ - smp_mb__after_atomic(); - if (swait_active(&vcpu->wq)) { - /* - * The vcpu gave up the cpu voluntarily, mark it as a good - * yield-candidate. - */ - WRITE_ONCE(vcpu->ready, true); - swake_up_one(&vcpu->wq); - vcpu->stat.halt_wakeup++; - } - /* - * The VCPU might not be sleeping but is executing the VSIE. Let's + * The VCPU might not be sleeping but rather executing VSIE. Let's * kick it, so it leaves the SIE to process the request. */ kvm_s390_vsie_kick(vcpu);