On 27/04/2017 14:06, Cornelia Huck wrote:
> On Wed, 26 Apr 2017 22:32:23 +0200
> Radim Krčmář <rkrcmar@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>> We want to have kvm_make_all_cpus_request() to be an optmized version of
>>
>> kvm_for_each_vcpu(i, vcpu, kvm) {
>> kvm_make_request(vcpu, request);
>> kvm_vcpu_kick(vcpu);
>> }
>>
>> and kvm_vcpu_kick() wakes up the target vcpu. We know which requests do
>> not need the wake up and use it to optimize the loop.
>>
>> Thanks to that, this patch doesn't change the behavior of current users
>> (the all don't need the wake up) and only prepares for future where the
>
> s/the all/they all/
>
>> wake up is going to be needed.
>>
>> I think that most requests do not need the wake up, so we would flip the
>> bit then.
>>
>> kvm_vcpu_kick() will get this condition after it is merged with
>> kvm_make_request() because we currently don't know which request is being
>> kicked.
>
> I find this sentence confusing: not all kicks are directly related to
> requests.
I agree, it is backwards. Changing to "Later on, kvm_make_request()
will take care of kicking too, using this bit to make the decision
whether to kick or not".
Paolo
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Radim Krčmář <rkrcmar@xxxxxxxxxx>
>> ---
>> virt/kvm/kvm_main.c | 3 +++
>> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/virt/kvm/kvm_main.c b/virt/kvm/kvm_main.c
>> index e5d52b46b531..3772f7dcc72d 100644
>> --- a/virt/kvm/kvm_main.c
>> +++ b/virt/kvm/kvm_main.c
>> @@ -186,6 +186,9 @@ bool kvm_make_all_cpus_request(struct kvm *kvm, unsigned int req)
>> /* Set ->requests bit before we read ->mode. */
>> smp_mb__after_atomic();
>>
>> + if (!(req & KVM_REQUEST_NO_WAKEUP))
>> + kvm_vcpu_wake_up(vcpu);
>> +
>> if (cpus != NULL && cpu != -1 && cpu != me &&
>> kvm_vcpu_exiting_guest_mode(vcpu) != OUTSIDE_GUEST_MODE)
>> cpumask_set_cpu(cpu, cpus);
>
> The code change looks good to me.
>
