From: Wanpeng Li <[email protected]> Use kvm_vcpu_wake_up() in kvm_s390_vcpu_wakeup().
Suggested-by: Paolo Bonzini <[email protected]> Cc: Paolo Bonzini <[email protected]> Cc: Radim Krčmář <[email protected]> Cc: Christian Borntraeger <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: Wanpeng Li <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: Paolo Bonzini <[email protected]> --- v2->v3: no need to set vcpu->ready here arch/s390/kvm/interrupt.c | 23 +++-------------------- 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 20 deletions(-) diff --git a/arch/s390/kvm/interrupt.c b/arch/s390/kvm/interrupt.c index 26f8bf4a22a7..b5fd6e85657c 100644 --- a/arch/s390/kvm/interrupt.c +++ b/arch/s390/kvm/interrupt.c @@ -1224,28 +1224,11 @@ int kvm_s390_handle_wait(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu) void kvm_s390_vcpu_wakeup(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu) { - /* - * We cannot move this into the if, as the CPU might be already - * in kvm_vcpu_block without having the waitqueue set (polling) - */ vcpu->valid_wakeup = true; + kvm_vcpu_wake_up(vcpu); + /* - * This is mostly to document, that the read in swait_active could - * be moved before other stores, leading to subtle races. - * All current users do not store or use an atomic like update - */ - smp_mb__after_atomic(); - if (swait_active(&vcpu->wq)) { - /* - * The vcpu gave up the cpu voluntarily, mark it as a good - * yield-candidate. - */ - WRITE_ONCE(vcpu->ready, true); - swake_up_one(&vcpu->wq); - vcpu->stat.halt_wakeup++; - } - /* - * The VCPU might not be sleeping but is executing the VSIE. Let's + * The VCPU might not be sleeping but rather executing VSIE. Let's * kick it, so it leaves the SIE to process the request. */ kvm_s390_vsie_kick(vcpu); -- 1.8.3.1
