[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <e2430301-6db2-b50d-a919-ed703f8db367@redhat.com>
Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2017 13:47:10 +0200
From: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
To: Davidlohr Bueso <dave@...olabs.net>, mingo@...nel.org,
peterz@...radead.org
Cc: npiggin@...il.com, paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Davidlohr Bueso <dbueso@...e.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/7] kvm,lapic: Justify use of swait_activate()
On 13/09/2017 22:08, Davidlohr Bueso wrote:
> A comment might serve future readers.
>
> Signed-off-by: Davidlohr Bueso <dbueso@...e.de>
> ---
> arch/x86/kvm/lapic.c | 4 ++++
> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/lapic.c b/arch/x86/kvm/lapic.c
> index aaf10b6f5380..69c5612be786 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/kvm/lapic.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/kvm/lapic.c
> @@ -1324,6 +1324,10 @@ static void apic_timer_expired(struct kvm_lapic *apic)
> atomic_inc(&apic->lapic_timer.pending);
> kvm_set_pending_timer(vcpu);
>
> + /*
> + * For x86, the atomic_inc() is serialized, thus
> + * using swait_active() is safe.
> + */
> if (swait_active(q))
> swake_up(q);
>
>
Better add an smp_mb__after_atomic() for documentation purposes.
Paolo
Powered by blists - more mailing lists