lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2015]   [Oct]   [21]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH v3 2/4] KVM: use simple waitqueue for vcpu->wq
On Wed, Oct 21, 2015 at 07:55:00PM +1100, Paul Mackerras wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 20, 2015 at 04:00:31PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Tue, Oct 20, 2015 at 09:28:08AM +0200, Daniel Wagner wrote:
> > > diff --git a/arch/powerpc/kvm/book3s_hv.c b/arch/powerpc/kvm/book3s_hv.c
> > > index 2280497..f534e15 100644
> > > --- a/arch/powerpc/kvm/book3s_hv.c
> > > +++ b/arch/powerpc/kvm/book3s_hv.c
> > > @@ -2560,10 +2560,9 @@ static void kvmppc_vcore_blocked(struct kvmppc_vcore *vc)
> > > {
> > > struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu;
> > > int do_sleep = 1;
> > > + DECLARE_SWAITQUEUE(wait);
> > >
> > > - DEFINE_WAIT(wait);
> > > -
> > > - prepare_to_wait(&vc->wq, &wait, TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE);
> > > + prepare_to_swait(&vc->wq, &wait, TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE);
> > >
> > > /*
> > > * Check one last time for pending exceptions and ceded state after
> > > @@ -2577,7 +2576,7 @@ static void kvmppc_vcore_blocked(struct kvmppc_vcore *vc)
> > > }
> > >
> > > if (!do_sleep) {
> > > - finish_wait(&vc->wq, &wait);
> > > + finish_swait(&vc->wq, &wait);
> > > return;
> > > }
> > >
> > > @@ -2585,7 +2584,7 @@ static void kvmppc_vcore_blocked(struct kvmppc_vcore *vc)
> > > trace_kvmppc_vcore_blocked(vc, 0);
> > > spin_unlock(&vc->lock);
> > > schedule();
> > > - finish_wait(&vc->wq, &wait);
> > > + finish_swait(&vc->wq, &wait);
> > > spin_lock(&vc->lock);
> > > vc->vcore_state = VCORE_INACTIVE;
> > > trace_kvmppc_vcore_blocked(vc, 1);
> >
> > This one looks buggy, one should _NOT_ assume that your blocking
> > condition is true after schedule().
>
> Do you mean it's buggy in calling finish_swait there, or it's buggy in
> not immediately re-checking the condition? If the latter, then it's
> OK because the sole caller of this function calls it in a loop and
> checks the condition (all runnable vcpus in this vcore are idle) each
> time around the loop.

Ah, I missed the caller loop, yes that's fine.

I'm biased against such code for having seen a few too many broken
open-coded wait loops I suppose..


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2015-10-21 11:21    [W:0.117 / U:0.548 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site