> -----Original Message----- > From: Alexander Graf [mailto:agraf@xxxxxxx] > Sent: Monday, February 27, 2012 11:53 PM > To: Bhushan Bharat-R65777 > Cc: kvm-ppc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; kvm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linuxppc-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; > Wood Scott-B07421 > Subject: Re: [PATCH 24/37] KVM: PPC: booke: rework rescheduling checks > > On 02/27/2012 06:33 PM, Alexander Graf wrote: > > On 02/27/2012 05:34 PM, Bhushan Bharat-R65777 wrote: > >> > >>> +} > >>> + > >>> +/* > >>> + * Common checks before entering the guest world. Call with > >>> interrupts > >>> + * disabled. > >>> + * > >>> + * returns !0 if a signal is pending and check_signal is true */ > >>> +static int kvmppc_prepare_to_enter(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, bool > >>> +check_signal) { > >>> + int r = 0; > >>> + > >>> + WARN_ON_ONCE(!irqs_disabled()); > >>> + while (true) { > >>> + if (need_resched()) { > >>> + local_irq_enable(); > >>> + cond_resched(); > >>> + local_irq_disable(); > >>> + continue; > >>> + } > >>> + > >>> + if (kvmppc_core_prepare_to_enter(vcpu)) { > >> kvmppc_prepare_to_enter() is called even on heavyweight_exit. Should > >> not this be called only on lightweight_exit? > > > > Yeah, we don't need to call it when exiting anyways. That's a > > functional change though, which this patch is trying not to introduce. > > So we should rather do that as a patch on top. > > So how about this (warning! broken whitespace)? > > > diff --git a/arch/powerpc/kvm/booke.c b/arch/powerpc/kvm/booke.c index > 7a16b56..616aa2d 100644 > --- a/arch/powerpc/kvm/booke.c > +++ b/arch/powerpc/kvm/booke.c > @@ -464,7 +464,7 @@ int kvmppc_core_prepare_to_enter(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu) > * > * returns !0 if a signal is pending and check_signal is true > */ > -static int kvmppc_prepare_to_enter(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, bool > check_signal) > +static int kvmppc_prepare_to_enter(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu) > { > int r = 0; > > @@ -483,7 +483,7 @@ static int kvmppc_prepare_to_enter(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, > bool check_signal) > continue; > } > > - if (check_signal && signal_pending(current)) > + if (signal_pending(current)) > r = 1; > > break; > @@ -507,7 +507,7 @@ int kvmppc_vcpu_run(struct kvm_run *kvm_run, struct kvm_vcpu > *vcpu) > } > > local_irq_disable(); > - if (kvmppc_prepare_to_enter(vcpu, true)) { > + if (kvmppc_prepare_to_enter(vcpu)) { > kvm_run->exit_reason = KVM_EXIT_INTR; > ret = -EINTR; > goto out; > @@ -941,13 +941,16 @@ int kvmppc_handle_exit(struct kvm_run *run, struct > kvm_vcpu *vcpu, > * To avoid clobbering exit_reason, only check for signals if we > * aren't already exiting to userspace for some other reason. > */ > - local_irq_disable(); > - if (kvmppc_prepare_to_enter(vcpu, !(r & RESUME_HOST))) { > - run->exit_reason = KVM_EXIT_INTR; > - r = (-EINTR << 2) | RESUME_HOST | (r & RESUME_FLAG_NV); > - kvmppc_account_exit(vcpu, SIGNAL_EXITS); > + if (!(r & RESUME_HOST)) { > + local_irq_disable(); > + if (kvmppc_prepare_to_enter(vcpu)) { > + run->exit_reason = KVM_EXIT_INTR; > + r = (-EINTR << 2) | RESUME_HOST | (r & > RESUME_FLAG_NV); > + kvmppc_account_exit(vcpu, SIGNAL_EXITS); > + } > } > > +out: Why? Otherwise looks ok to me. Thanks -Bharat > return r; > } > > -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
