On Fri, Jul 9, 2021 at 5:53 PM Sergey Senozhatsky
<senozhatsky@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > +DECLARE_STATIC_CALL(pv_vcpu_is_preempted, dummy_vcpu_is_preempted);
> > > +
> > > +static inline bool paravirt_vcpu_is_preempted(unsigned int cpu)
> > > +{
> > > + return static_call(pv_vcpu_is_preempted)(cpu);
> > > +}
> > > +
> > > +int __init pv_vcpu_state_init(void);
> > > +
> > > #else
> > >
> > > +#define pv_vcpu_state_init() do {} while (0)
> > > +
> > > #define pv_time_init() do {} while (0)
> > >
> > > #endif // CONFIG_PARAVIRT
> > > diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/paravirt.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/paravirt.c
> > > index 75fed4460407..d8fc46795d94 100644
> > > --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/paravirt.c
> > > +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/paravirt.c
> > > @@ -40,6 +40,11 @@ struct pv_time_stolen_time_region {
> > >
> > > static DEFINE_PER_CPU(struct pv_time_stolen_time_region, stolen_time_region);
> > >
> > > +static DEFINE_PER_CPU(struct vcpu_state, vcpus_states);
> > > +struct static_key pv_vcpu_is_preempted_enabled;
> > > +
> > > +DEFINE_STATIC_CALL(pv_vcpu_is_preempted, dummy_vcpu_is_preempted);
> >
> > Could we use DEFINE_STATIC_CALL_NULL and get rid of the dummy
> > function? I believe that makes the function trampoline as return
> > instruction, till it is updated.
>
> Is DEFINE_STATIC_CALL_NULL for cases when function returns void?
>
> We need something that returns `false` to vcpu_is_preempted() or
> per_cpu(vcpus_states) once pv vcpu-state is initialised.
Ah, that might be problematic. In which case what you did is fine. Thanks,
- Joel
>
> [..]
> > > +static bool __vcpu_is_preempted(unsigned int cpu)
> > > +{
> > > + struct vcpu_state *st;
> > > +
> > > + st = &per_cpu(vcpus_states, cpu);
> > > + return READ_ONCE(st->preempted);
> >
> > I guess you could just do:
> > {
> > return READ_ONCE(per_cpu(vcpus_states, cpu).preempted);
> > }
>
> Ack.
_______________________________________________
kvmarm mailing list
kvmarm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/kvmarm
