On 04/28/2016 10:45 AM, Andre Przywara wrote:
...
+void vgic_mmio_write_sactive(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu,
+ gpa_t addr, unsigned int len,
+ unsigned long val)
...
+ spin_lock(&vcpu->arch.vgic_cpu.ap_list_lock);
+ spin_lock(&irq->irq_lock);
If using the suggested higher level function from patch 14 this could be:
vgic_lock_aplist_irq(&vcpu->arch.vgic_cpu.ap_list_lock, &irq->irq_lock);
+
+ /*
+ * Recheck after dropping the IRQ lock to see if we should
+ * still care about queueing it.
+ */
+ if (irq->active || irq->vcpu) {
+ irq->active = true;
+
+ spin_unlock(&irq->irq_lock);
+ spin_unlock(&vcpu->arch.vgic_cpu.ap_list_lock);
And this could be:
vgic_unlock_aplist_irq(&vcpu->arch.vgic_cpu.ap_list_lock, &irq->irq_lock);
+
+ continue;
+ }
+
+ /* Did the target VCPU change while we had the lock dropped? */
+ if (vcpu != irq->target_vcpu) {
+ spin_unlock(&irq->irq_lock);
+ spin_unlock(&vcpu->arch.vgic_cpu.ap_list_lock);
And this could be:
vgic_unlock_aplist_irq(&vcpu->arch.vgic_cpu.ap_list_lock, &irq->irq_lock);
+
+ goto retry;
+ }
+
+ /* Now queue the IRQ to the VCPU's ap_list. */
+ list_add_tail(&irq->ap_list, &vcpu->arch.vgic_cpu.ap_list_head);
+ irq->vcpu = vcpu;
+
+ irq->active = true;
+
+ spin_unlock(&irq->irq_lock);
+ spin_unlock(&vcpu->arch.vgic_cpu.ap_list_lock);
And this could be:
vgic_unlock_aplist_irq(&vcpu->arch.vgic_cpu.ap_list_lock, &irq->irq_lock);
+
+ kvm_vcpu_kick(vcpu);
+ }
+}
+
_______________________________________________
kvmarm mailing list
kvmarm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/kvmarm
