Hi:
Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>The wrappers make it less clear that the position of the call to kvm_arch_async_page_present depends on the architecture, and that only one of the two call sites will actually be active.
>Remove them.
>
>Cc: Andy Lutomirski <luto@xxxxxxxxxx>
>Cc: Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@xxxxxxxxxx>
>Signed-off-by: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@xxxxxxxxxx>
>---
> virt/kvm/async_pf.c | 21 ++++-----------------
> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 17 deletions(-)
>
>-static inline void kvm_async_page_present_sync(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu,
>- struct kvm_async_pf *work)
>-{
>-#ifdef CONFIG_KVM_ASYNC_PF_SYNC
>- kvm_arch_async_page_present(vcpu, work);
>-#endif
>-}
>-static inline void kvm_async_page_present_async(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu,
>- struct kvm_async_pf *work)
>-{
>-#ifndef CONFIG_KVM_ASYNC_PF_SYNC
>- kvm_arch_async_page_present(vcpu, work);
>-#endif
>-}
>-
Actually, these two functions took me some minutes to note the difference between them.
I thought they do the same thing and really confused me ... :)
> static struct kmem_cache *async_pf_cache;
>
> int kvm_async_pf_init(void)
>@@ -80,7 +65,8 @@ static void async_pf_execute(struct work_struct *work)
> if (locked)
> up_read(&mm->mmap_sem);
>
>- kvm_async_page_present_sync(vcpu, apf);
>+ if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_KVM_ASYNC_PF_SYNC))
>+ kvm_arch_async_page_present(vcpu, apf);
>
> spin_lock(&vcpu->async_pf.lock);
> list_add_tail(&apf->link, &vcpu->async_pf.done); @@ -157,7 +143,8 @@ void kvm_check_async_pf_completion(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
> spin_unlock(&vcpu->async_pf.lock);
>
> kvm_arch_async_page_ready(vcpu, work);
>- kvm_async_page_present_async(vcpu, work);
>+ if (!IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_KVM_ASYNC_PF_SYNC))
>+ kvm_arch_async_page_present(vcpu, work);
>
> list_del(&work->queue);
> vcpu->async_pf.queued--;
>--
>1.8.3.1
This patch really helps. Thanks!
Reviewed-by: Miaohe Lin <linmiaohe@xxxxxxxxxx>
