[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <78616cf8-2693-72cc-c2cc-5a849116ffc7@redhat.com>
Date: Wed, 17 Aug 2022 17:31:27 +0200
From: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
To: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
mlevitsk@...hat.com, vkuznets@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/9] KVM: x86: remove return value of kvm_vcpu_block
On 8/17/22 01:34, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> Isn't freeing up the return from kvm_vcpu_check_block() unnecessary? Can't we
> just do:
>
> diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/x86.c b/arch/x86/kvm/x86.c
> index 9f11b505cbee..ccb9f8bdeb18 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/kvm/x86.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/kvm/x86.c
> @@ -10633,7 +10633,7 @@ static inline int vcpu_block(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
> if (hv_timer)
> kvm_lapic_switch_to_hv_timer(vcpu);
>
> - if (!kvm_check_request(KVM_REQ_UNHALT, vcpu))
> + if (!kvm_arch_vcpu_runnable(vcpu))
> return 1;
> }
>
>
> which IMO is more intuitive and doesn't require reworking halt-polling (again).
This was my first idea indeed. However I didn't like calling
kvm_arch_vcpu_runnable() again and "did it schedule()" seemed to be a
less interesting result from kvm_vcpu_block() (and in fact
kvm_vcpu_halt() does not bother passing it up the return chain).
Paolo
Powered by blists - more mailing lists