On Thu, Jun 01, 2017 at 12:34:54PM +0200, Christoffer Dall wrote:
> On Tue, May 16, 2017 at 04:20:35AM +0200, Andrew Jones wrote:
> > The timer work is only scheduled for a VCPU when that VCPU is
> > blocked. This means we only need to wake it up, not kick (IPI)
> > it. While calling kvm_vcpu_kick() would just do the wake up,
> > and not kick, anyway, let's change this to avoid request-less
> > vcpu kicks, as they're generally not a good idea (see
> > "Request-less VCPU Kicks" in
> > Documentation/virtual/kvm/vcpu-requests.rst)
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Andrew Jones <[email protected]>
> > ---
> > virt/kvm/arm/arch_timer.c | 2 +-
> > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/virt/kvm/arm/arch_timer.c b/virt/kvm/arm/arch_timer.c
> > index 5976609ef27c..c9cd56f39b1e 100644
> > --- a/virt/kvm/arm/arch_timer.c
> > +++ b/virt/kvm/arm/arch_timer.c
> > @@ -95,7 +95,7 @@ static void kvm_timer_inject_irq_work(struct work_struct
> > *work)
> > * If the vcpu is blocked we want to wake it up so that it will see
> > * the timer has expired when entering the guest.
> > */
> > - kvm_vcpu_kick(vcpu);
> > + swake_up(kvm_arch_vcpu_wq(vcpu));
>
> We have kvm_vcpu_wake_up(). Why not use that?
The are two differences between swake_up(kvm_arch_vcpu_wq(vcpu)) and
kvm_vcpu_wake_up(vcpu)
1. kvm_vcpu_wake_up() has a return value: true on wake up, else false
2. kvm_vcpu_wake_up() increments the halt_wakeup stat when the vcpu
is awaken
(1) doesn't really matter, but (2) might. Hmm, I think we do want to
increment that stat in this case though, so I should change this.
Also, we have another use of swake_up(kvm_arch_vcpu_wq(vcpu)), in
kvm_arm_resume_guest(), but there I don't think we want to increment
the halt stat, so that one is probably OK.
Thanks,
drew
_______________________________________________
kvmarm mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/kvmarm
