[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <22800f1b-3bdb-15b4-7592-93a7b244b45a@redhat.com>
Date: Mon, 20 Apr 2020 19:25:28 +0200
From: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
To: Marc Zyngier <maz@...nel.org>, Davidlohr Bueso <dave@...olabs.net>
Cc: tglx@...utronix.de, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
Davidlohr Bueso <dbueso@...e.de>, peterz@...radead.org,
torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, bigeasy@...utronix.de,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, rostedt@...dmis.org,
linux-mips@...r.kernel.org, Paul Mackerras <paulus@...abs.org>,
joel@...lfernandes.org, will@...nel.org,
kvmarm@...ts.cs.columbia.edu
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] kvm: Replace vcpu->swait with rcuwait
On 20/04/20 19:12, Marc Zyngier wrote:
>>
>>
>> - trace_kvm_vcpu_wakeup(block_ns, waited, vcpu_valid_wakeup(vcpu));
>> + trace_kvm_vcpu_wakeup(block_ns, !block_check,
>> vcpu_valid_wakeup(vcpu));
>
> This looks like a change in the semantics of the tracepoint. Before
> this change, 'waited' would have been true if the vcpu waited at all.
> Here, you'd have false if it has been interrupted by a signal, even
> if the vcpu has waited for a period of time.
True, good catch. Perhaps add macros prepare_to_rcuwait and
finish_rcuwait?
Paolo
Powered by blists - more mailing lists