[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <db74a3a8-290e-edff-10ad-f861c60fbf8e@de.ibm.com>
Date: Thu, 18 Jul 2019 10:15:53 +0200
From: Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@...ibm.com>
To: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
Wanpeng Li <kernellwp@...il.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
kvm@...r.kernel.org
Cc: Radim Krčmář <rkrcmar@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RESEND] KVM: Boosting vCPUs that are delivering interrupts
On 18.07.19 09:59, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> On 12/07/19 09:15, Wanpeng Li wrote:
>> diff --git a/virt/kvm/kvm_main.c b/virt/kvm/kvm_main.c
>> index b4ab59d..2c46705 100644
>> --- a/virt/kvm/kvm_main.c
>> +++ b/virt/kvm/kvm_main.c
>> @@ -2404,8 +2404,10 @@ void kvm_vcpu_kick(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
>> int me;
>> int cpu = vcpu->cpu;
>>
>> - if (kvm_vcpu_wake_up(vcpu))
>> + if (kvm_vcpu_wake_up(vcpu)) {
>> + vcpu->preempted = true;
>> return;
>> + }
>>
>> me = get_cpu();
>> if (cpu != me && (unsigned)cpu < nr_cpu_ids && cpu_online(cpu))
>>
>
> Who is resetting vcpu->preempted to false in this case? This also
> applies to s390 in fact.
Isnt that done by the sched_in handler?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists