On Mon, Nov 17, 2014 at 10:36:13AM +0000, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> On 17/11/14 09:27, wanghaibin wrote:
> > When vgic_update_irq_pending with level-sensitive false, it is need to
> > deactivates an interrupt, and, it can go to out directly.
> > Here return a false value, because it will be not need to kick.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: wanghaibin <wanghaibin.wang@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > virt/kvm/arm/vgic.c | 3 +++
> > 1 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/virt/kvm/arm/vgic.c b/virt/kvm/arm/vgic.c
> > index 52f3bfa..b663140 100644
> > --- a/virt/kvm/arm/vgic.c
> > +++ b/virt/kvm/arm/vgic.c
> > @@ -1665,6 +1665,9 @@ static bool vgic_update_irq_pending(struct kvm *kvm, int cpuid,
> > } else {
> > vgic_dist_irq_clear_pending(vcpu, irq_num);
> > }
> > +
> > + ret = false;
> > + goto out;
> > }
> >
> > enabled = vgic_irq_is_enabled(vcpu, irq_num);
> >
>
> Have you actually tested this on real hardware? This looks like an
> interesting optimization, but I want to see some actual data.
>
Do you see any harm in merging this? I think it looks reasonable and
non-disruptive?
-Christoffer
_______________________________________________
kvmarm mailing list
kvmarm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/kvmarm
