| Message ID | 1563449947-7749-2-git-send-email-wanpengli@tencent.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New, archived |
| Headers | show |
| Series | [v2,1/2] KVM: Boosting vCPUs that are delivering interrupts | expand |
On 18.07.19 13:39, Wanpeng Li 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> with patch1 this looks good. > --- > arch/s390/kvm/interrupt.c | 15 +-------------- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 14 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/arch/s390/kvm/interrupt.c b/arch/s390/kvm/interrupt.c > index 26f8bf4..881cc5a 100644 > --- a/arch/s390/kvm/interrupt.c > +++ b/arch/s390/kvm/interrupt.c > @@ -1229,21 +1229,8 @@ void kvm_s390_vcpu_wakeup(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu) > * in kvm_vcpu_block without having the waitqueue set (polling) > */ > vcpu->valid_wakeup = true; > - /* > - * 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. > - */ > + if (kvm_vcpu_wake_up(vcpu)) > 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 > * kick it, so it leaves the SIE to process the request. >
diff --git a/arch/s390/kvm/interrupt.c b/arch/s390/kvm/interrupt.c index 26f8bf4..881cc5a 100644 --- a/arch/s390/kvm/interrupt.c +++ b/arch/s390/kvm/interrupt.c @@ -1229,21 +1229,8 @@ void kvm_s390_vcpu_wakeup(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu) * in kvm_vcpu_block without having the waitqueue set (polling) */ vcpu->valid_wakeup = true; - /* - * 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. - */ + if (kvm_vcpu_wake_up(vcpu)) 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 * kick it, so it leaves the SIE to process the request.