On 18.07.19 15:37, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> 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(-)
Reviewed-by: Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@xxxxxxxxxx>
>
> 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);
>
