On 25.11.2017 21:57, Christoffer Dall wrote: > Some architectures may decide to do different things during > kvm_arch_vcpu_load depending on the ioctl being executed. For example, > arm64 is about to do significant work in vcpu load/put when running a > vcpu, but it's problematic to do this for any other vcpu ioctl than > KVM_RUN. > > Further, while it may be possible to call kvm_arch_vcpu_load() for a > number of non-KVM_RUN ioctls, it makes the KVM/ARM code more difficult > to reason about, especially after my optimization series, because a lot > of things can now happen, where we have to consider if we're really in > the process of running a vcpu or not. > > This series will first move the vcpu_load() and vcpu_put() calls in the > arch generic dispatch function into each case of the switch statement > and then, one-by-one, pushed the calls down into the architecture > specific code making the changes for each ioctl as required. > > Thanks, > -Christoffer > > Christoffer Dall (15): > KVM: Prepare for moving vcpu_load/vcpu_put into arch specific code > KVM: Factor out vcpu->pid adjustment for KVM_RUN > KVM: Move vcpu_load to arch-specific kvm_arch_vcpu_ioctl_run > KVM: Move vcpu_load to arch-specific kvm_arch_vcpu_ioctl_get_regs > KVM: Move vcpu_load to arch-specific kvm_arch_vcpu_ioctl_set_regs > KVM: Move vcpu_load to arch-specific kvm_arch_vcpu_ioctl_get_sregs > KVM: Move vcpu_load to arch-specific kvm_arch_vcpu_ioctl_set_sregs > KVM: Move vcpu_load to arch-specific kvm_arch_vcpu_ioctl_get_mpstate > KVM: Move vcpu_load to arch-specific kvm_arch_vcpu_ioctl_set_mpstate > KVM: Move vcpu_load to arch-specific kvm_arch_vcpu_ioctl_translate > KVM: Move vcpu_load to arch-specific > kvm_arch_vcpu_ioctl_set_guest_debug > KVM: Move vcpu_load to arch-specific kvm_arch_vcpu_ioctl_get_fpu > KVM: Move vcpu_load to arch-specific kvm_arch_vcpu_ioctl_set_fpu > KVM: Move vcpu_load to arch-specific kvm_arch_vcpu_ioctl > KVM: arm/arm64: Avoid vcpu_load for other vcpu ioctls than KVM_RUN > > arch/arm64/kvm/guest.c | 17 +++++-- > arch/mips/kvm/mips.c | 72 +++++++++++++++++++-------- > arch/powerpc/kvm/book3s.c | 38 +++++++++++++- > arch/powerpc/kvm/booke.c | 65 +++++++++++++++++++----- > arch/powerpc/kvm/powerpc.c | 24 ++++++--- > arch/s390/kvm/kvm-s390.c | 119 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------- > arch/x86/kvm/x86.c | 121 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------- > include/linux/kvm_host.h | 2 + > virt/kvm/arm/arm.c | 91 +++++++++++++++++++++++++--------- > virt/kvm/kvm_main.c | 43 +++++++--------- > 10 files changed, 463 insertions(+), 129 deletions(-) > Looking at the amount of code we duplicate, I wonder if simple ifdefery (if possible) would be easier for the single known "special" case. (most probably an unpopular opinion :) ) -- Thanks, David / dhildenb -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-s390" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
