On 21/11/14 12:53, Christoffer Dall wrote:
> 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?
Agreed. I'll take it.
M.
--
Jazz is not dead. It just smells funny...
_______________________________________________
kvmarm mailing list
kvmarm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/kvmarm
