> +bool kvm_arch_vcpu_in_kernel(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
> +{
> + return false;
> +}
why don't we need an EXPORT_SYMBOL here?
> +
> /* Just ensure a guest exit from a particular CPU */
> static void exit_vm_noop(void *info)
> {
> diff --git a/virt/kvm/kvm_main.c b/virt/kvm/kvm_main.c
> index 15252d7..e7720d2 100644
> --- a/virt/kvm/kvm_main.c
> +++ b/virt/kvm/kvm_main.c
> @@ -2317,7 +2317,7 @@ static bool kvm_vcpu_eligible_for_directed_yield(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
> #endif
> }
>
> -void kvm_vcpu_on_spin(struct kvm_vcpu *me)
> +void kvm_vcpu_on_spin(struct kvm_vcpu *me, bool me_in_kern)
> {
> struct kvm *kvm = me->kvm;
> struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu;
> @@ -2348,6 +2348,8 @@ void kvm_vcpu_on_spin(struct kvm_vcpu *me)
> continue;
> if (swait_active(&vcpu->wq) && !kvm_arch_vcpu_runnable(vcpu))
> continue;
> + if (me_in_kern && !kvm_arch_vcpu_in_kernel(vcpu))
> + continue;
hm, does this patch compile? (me_in_kern)
I would even move this to an other patch.
Maybe even split into
a) introducing kvm_arch_vcpu_in_kernel() for all archs
b) modifying kvm_vcpu_on_spin(), passing the result from
kvm_arch_vcpu_in_kernel()
c) filling kvm_arch_vcpu_in_kernel() with life for different archs
(multiple patches)
d) pimping kvm_vcpu_on_spin()
> if (!kvm_vcpu_eligible_for_directed_yield(vcpu))
> continue;
>
>
--
Thanks,
David
