On 08.08.2017 10:42, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>
>> +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)
pardon me, missed the parameter, so ignore this comment. comment
regarding splitting up below still holds :)
>
> 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
