linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 3/3] KVM: implement spinlock optimization logic for arm/s390

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <59882ABD.6000501@huawei.com>
Date:   Mon, 7 Aug 2017 16:54:21 +0800
From:   "Longpeng (Mike)" <longpeng2@...wei.com>
To:     David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>
CC:     <pbonzini@...hat.com>, <rkrcmar@...hat.com>, <agraf@...e.com>,
        <borntraeger@...ibm.com>, <cohuck@...hat.com>,
        <christoffer.dall@...aro.org>, <marc.zyngier@....com>,
        <james.hogan@...tec.com>, <kvm@...r.kernel.org>,
        <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <weidong.huang@...wei.com>,
        <arei.gonglei@...wei.com>, <wangxinxin.wang@...wei.com>,
        <longpeng.mike@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] KVM: implement spinlock optimization logic for arm/s390


On 2017/8/7 16:52, David Hildenbrand wrote:

> On 07.08.2017 10:44, Longpeng(Mike) wrote:
>> Implements the kvm_arch_vcpu_spin/preempt_in_kernel() for arm/s390,
>> they needn't cache the result.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Longpeng(Mike) <longpeng2@...wei.com>
>> ---
>>  arch/s390/kvm/kvm-s390.c | 4 ++--
>>  virt/kvm/arm/arm.c       | 4 ++--
>>  2 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/arch/s390/kvm/kvm-s390.c b/arch/s390/kvm/kvm-s390.c
>> index f78cdc2..49b9178 100644
>> --- a/arch/s390/kvm/kvm-s390.c
>> +++ b/arch/s390/kvm/kvm-s390.c
>> @@ -2449,12 +2449,12 @@ int kvm_arch_vcpu_runnable(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
>>  
>>  bool kvm_arch_vcpu_spin_in_kernel(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
>>  {
>> -	return false;
>> +	return !(vcpu->arch.sie_block->gpsw.mask & PSW_MASK_PSTATE);
>>  }
>>  
>>  bool kvm_arch_vcpu_preempt_in_kernel(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
>>  {
>> -	return false;
>> +	return !(vcpu->arch.sie_block->gpsw.mask & PSW_MASK_PSTATE);
>>  }
>>  
>>  void kvm_s390_vcpu_block(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
>> diff --git a/virt/kvm/arm/arm.c b/virt/kvm/arm/arm.c
>> index e45f780..956f025 100644
>> --- a/virt/kvm/arm/arm.c
>> +++ b/virt/kvm/arm/arm.c
>> @@ -418,12 +418,12 @@ int kvm_arch_vcpu_runnable(struct kvm_vcpu *v)
>>  
>>  bool kvm_arch_vcpu_spin_in_kernel(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
>>  {
>> -	return false;
>> +	return vcpu_mode_priv(vcpu);
>>  }
>>  
>>  bool kvm_arch_vcpu_preempt_in_kernel(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
>>  {
>> -	return false;
>> +	return vcpu_mode_priv(vcpu);
>>  }
>>  
>>  /* Just ensure a guest exit from a particular CPU */
>>
> 
> Can you split that into two parts? (arm and s390x?)


OK, I'll split in V2. :)

> 


-- 
Regards,
Longpeng(Mike)