From: Wanpeng Li <wanpengli@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Use kvm_vcpu_wake_up() in kvm_s390_vcpu_wakeup().
Suggested-by: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@xxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@xxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Radim Krčmář <rkrcmar@xxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@xxxxxxxxxx>
Signed-off-by: Wanpeng Li <wanpengli@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Signed-off-by: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@xxxxxxxxxx>
---
v2->v3: no need to set vcpu->ready here
arch/s390/kvm/interrupt.c | 23 +++--------------------
1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 20 deletions(-)
diff --git a/arch/s390/kvm/interrupt.c b/arch/s390/kvm/interrupt.c
index 26f8bf4a22a7..b5fd6e85657c 100644
--- a/arch/s390/kvm/interrupt.c
+++ b/arch/s390/kvm/interrupt.c
@@ -1224,28 +1224,11 @@ int kvm_s390_handle_wait(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
void kvm_s390_vcpu_wakeup(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
{
- /*
- * We cannot move this into the if, as the CPU might be already
- * in kvm_vcpu_block without having the waitqueue set (polling)
- */
vcpu->valid_wakeup = true;
+ kvm_vcpu_wake_up(vcpu);
+
/*
- * This is mostly to document, that the read in swait_active could
- * be moved before other stores, leading to subtle races.
- * All current users do not store or use an atomic like update
- */
- smp_mb__after_atomic();
- if (swait_active(&vcpu->wq)) {
- /*
- * The vcpu gave up the cpu voluntarily, mark it as a good
- * yield-candidate.
- */
- WRITE_ONCE(vcpu->ready, true);
- swake_up_one(&vcpu->wq);
- vcpu->stat.halt_wakeup++;
- }
- /*
- * The VCPU might not be sleeping but is executing the VSIE. Let's
+ * The VCPU might not be sleeping but rather executing VSIE. Let's
* kick it, so it leaves the SIE to process the request.
*/
kvm_s390_vsie_kick(vcpu);
--
1.8.3.1
