On Mon, Jan 19, 2015 at 12:41:00PM -0200, Marcelo Tosatti wrote: > On Fri, Jan 16, 2015 at 11:48:46AM -0500, Steven Rostedt wrote: > > > static void kvmppc_vcore_blocked(struct kvmppc_vcore *vc) > > > { > > > - DEFINE_WAIT(wait); > > > + DEFINE_SWAITER(wait); > > > > > > - prepare_to_wait(&vc->wq, &wait, TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE); > > > + swait_prepare(&vc->wq, &wait, TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE); > > > vc->vcore_state = VCORE_SLEEPING; > > > spin_unlock(&vc->lock); > > > schedule(); > > > - finish_wait(&vc->wq, &wait); > > > + swait_finish(&vc->wq, &wait); > > > spin_lock(&vc->lock); > > > vc->vcore_state = VCORE_INACTIVE; > > > } > > > @@ -1613,7 +1613,7 @@ > > > kvmppc_create_dtl_entry(vcpu, vc); > > > kvmppc_start_thread(vcpu); > > > } else if (vc->vcore_state == VCORE_SLEEPING) { > > > - wake_up(&vc->wq); > > > + swait_wake(&vc->wq); > > > > I notice everywhere you have a swait_wake_interruptible() but here. Is > > there a reason why? > > > > IIRC, Peter wants to make swait wakeup usage homogenous. That is, you > > either sleep in an interruptible state, or you don't. You can't mix and > > match it. > > IIUC there is only one waiter on this waitqueue at any given time. > > Paul is that correct? Yes, that's right. It's only the task that has taken the responsibility for running the virtual core that would be waiting on that wait queue. Paul. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html