On Sun, Mar 22, 2020 at 09:33:17AM -0700, Davidlohr Bueso wrote:
> On Fri, 20 Mar 2020, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>
> > On Fri, Mar 20, 2020 at 01:55:26AM -0700, Davidlohr Bueso wrote:
> > > - swait_event_interruptible_exclusive(*wq, ((!vcpu->arch.power_off) &&
> > > - (!vcpu->arch.pause)));
> > > + rcuwait_wait_event(*wait,
> > > + (!vcpu->arch.power_off) && (!vcpu->arch.pause),
> > > + TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE);
> >
> > > - for (;;) {
> > > - prepare_to_swait_exclusive(&vcpu->wq, &wait, TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE);
> > > -
> > > - if (kvm_vcpu_check_block(vcpu) < 0)
> > > - break;
> > > -
> > > - waited = true;
> > > - schedule();
> > > - }
> > > -
> > > - finish_swait(&vcpu->wq, &wait);
> > > + rcuwait_wait_event(&vcpu->wait,
> > > + (block_check = kvm_vcpu_check_block(vcpu)) < 0,
> > > + TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE);
> >
> > Are these yet more instances that really want to be TASK_IDLE ?
>
> Hmm probably as it makes sense for a blocked vcpu not to be contributing to
> the loadavg. So if this is the only reason to use interruptible, then yes we
> ought to change it.
>
> However, I'll make this a separate patch, given this (ab)use isn't as obvious
> as the PS3 case, which is a kthread and therefore signals are masked.
The thing that was a dead give-away was that the return value of the
interruptible wait wasn't used.
