On 07/13/2012 01:32 AM, Christian Borntraeger wrote:
On 12/07/12 21:18, Raghavendra K T wrote:
+#ifdef CONFIG_HAVE_KVM_CPU_RELAX_INTERCEPT
[...]
+ struct {
+ bool cpu_relax_intercepted;
+ bool dy_eligible;
+ } ple;
+#endif
[...]
}
vcpu->run = page_address(page);
+ vcpu->ple.cpu_relax_intercepted = false;
+ vcpu->ple.dy_eligible = false;
This struct is only defined if CONFIG_HAVE_KVM_CPU_RELAX_INTERCEPT is set, but here it
is always accessed. Will break on !x86&& !s390.
Yes! I forgot about archs in init function.
How about having
#ifdef CONFIG_HAVE_KVM_CPU_RELAX_INTERCEPT
vcpu->ple.cpu_relax_intercepted = false;
vcpu->ple.dy_eligible = false;
#endif
This would solve all the problem.
r = kvm_arch_vcpu_init(vcpu);
if (r< 0)
@@ -1577,6 +1579,7 @@ void kvm_vcpu_on_spin(struct kvm_vcpu *me)
int pass;
int i;
+ me->ple.cpu_relax_intercepted = true;
dito
currently vcpu_on_spin is used only by x86 and s390. so if some other
arch in future uses vcpu_on_spin, I believe they also have to enable
CONFIG_HAVE_KVM_CPU_RELAX_INTERCEPT
what do you think?
otherwise we have to add hook everywhere
/*
* We boost the priority of a VCPU that is runnable but not
* currently running, because it got preempted by something
@@ -1602,6 +1605,7 @@ void kvm_vcpu_on_spin(struct kvm_vcpu *me)
}
}
}
+ me->ple.cpu_relax_intercepted = false;
again.
maybe define static inline access functions in kvm_host.h that are no-ops
if CONFIG_HAVE_KVM_CPU_RELAX_INTERCEPT is not set.
--
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
