On 13.12.2017 12:38, Wanpeng Li wrote:
> 2017-12-13 18:20 GMT+08:00 David Hildenbrand <david@xxxxxxxxxx>:
>> On 13.12.2017 02:33, Wanpeng Li wrote:
>>> From: Wanpeng Li <wanpeng.li@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>>>
>>> This patch reuses the preempted field in kvm_steal_time, and will export
>>> the vcpu running/pre-empted information to the guest from host. This will
>>> enable guest to intelligently send ipi to running vcpus and set flag for
>>> pre-empted vcpus. This will prevent waiting for vcpus that are not running.
>>>
>>> Cc: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>> Cc: Radim Krčmář <rkrcmar@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>> Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>> Signed-off-by: Wanpeng Li <wanpeng.li@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>>> ---
>>> arch/x86/include/uapi/asm/kvm_para.h | 3 +++
>>> arch/x86/kernel/kvm.c | 2 +-
>>> arch/x86/kvm/x86.c | 4 ++--
>>> 3 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/arch/x86/include/uapi/asm/kvm_para.h b/arch/x86/include/uapi/asm/kvm_para.h
>>> index 09cc064..763b692 100644
>>> --- a/arch/x86/include/uapi/asm/kvm_para.h
>>> +++ b/arch/x86/include/uapi/asm/kvm_para.h
>>> @@ -51,6 +51,9 @@ struct kvm_steal_time {
>>> __u32 pad[11];
>>> };
>>>
>>> +#define KVM_VCPU_NOT_PREEMPTED (0 << 0)
>>> +#define KVM_VCPU_PREEMPTED (1 << 0)
>>
>> Is it really helpful to have two flags?
>>
>> Just use KVM_VCPU_PREEMPTED and clear that one in record_steal_time()
>
> I think it is fine since there is a third flag introduced in patch
> 2/4, it is more clear currently.
>
> Regards,
> Wanpeng Li
>
Having two flags representing the same thing is not clear to me.
--
Thanks,
David / dhildenb
