From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.8 required=3.0 tests=DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1900EC433FF for ; Mon, 5 Aug 2019 07:18:28 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DFDA5205F4 for ; Mon, 5 Aug 2019 07:18:27 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=brainfault-org.20150623.gappssmtp.com header.i=@brainfault-org.20150623.gappssmtp.com header.b="vaSHkIAH" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1727599AbfHEHS0 (ORCPT ); Mon, 5 Aug 2019 03:18:26 -0400 Received: from mail-wr1-f68.google.com ([209.85.221.68]:38201 "EHLO mail-wr1-f68.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726394AbfHEHS0 (ORCPT ); Mon, 5 Aug 2019 03:18:26 -0400 Received: by mail-wr1-f68.google.com with SMTP id g17so83253380wrr.5 for ; Mon, 05 Aug 2019 00:18:25 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=brainfault-org.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=RUqYiFGRwqZz3baSi7DePLwfU/zHvDjxvxTGgWRnjy4=; b=vaSHkIAHMZgvdsmo51ZYrbAryRPsAqLUFYv5jJavndTgROhdJ2YKtLsZZ7C5gyHtvW d/v3QIkwaKBrAFuclzEsoay1vDYmjzsPaxL6kALb0MhKAhO2G5JvtGBdNRuHDOhawgi4 lXTjtmEwRoGoiHPDd7rP98028ijkU/rrmccPlI4+BJUogzjLpnIAfcM/RSF7a0W20G3a +lYNkmcxP15Wv0MSZzqX1VmMeIw8oeevNB0gHTpWSvBKIISi5EBHG0ojEi+JIBbaGMD3 Jrc2jqiRbvWDhyZXhGGFBf5N5Ec8u2CeeK2HmFW6XmZ5yQoLYLGMohbmcA8s+tpwyTkC naNA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=RUqYiFGRwqZz3baSi7DePLwfU/zHvDjxvxTGgWRnjy4=; b=STkNqlGyP5A7AYQY2zDWawcRtAEfiJ931Hg0Eegg1gq1+7BPRhoHI1hZZx8MtTklRy e1Uxd6dDxZ+zmVMUClGAbBJnSAnmTLzrU2TAMntnpy+LHT/d6vsGXAEOWW7HXrmibBgr LL9AgRWQMtOX8QIfJtzDhOChgo0eoqcdAXQeIRzlbEYodA17SmPdMTAHJu2LpthRuSCu Fyiu8GSQMlX1HXHJITxApM50qgl5dx1vPNvYQLxa6fddT/QA2Bxo7W+JDRyFRxMUcirW 3cejSk0ditvFkxXRMHQX61U/8ajjF5qAZZ04KovOqkDroCKSeMboRzmHrsxFbpNGeOmb d2bw== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAWvM7bEDlVy/l9toqIGRMYu7f2ENS/YM41kiJ75bulji9HehLXh alrg5e/2iImbdqw7MNsFNTRuCA3g1jUhzEPJI54= X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqw/FM+tBx9ajgV2UsWP4KPKi99Z0fzot3UMGZ6r5xVj6SOPqPddG0DiyAWPBjneacTNTdnwazaj1Hb9o9cCPqQ= X-Received: by 2002:a5d:4e50:: with SMTP id r16mr24977381wrt.227.1564989504211; Mon, 05 Aug 2019 00:18:24 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20190802074620.115029-1-anup.patel@wdc.com> <20190802074620.115029-11-anup.patel@wdc.com> <5b966171-4d11-237d-5a43-dc881efb7d0a@redhat.com> <458f6b85-cdb2-5e6b-6730-4875f0e4cdba@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <458f6b85-cdb2-5e6b-6730-4875f0e4cdba@redhat.com> From: Anup Patel Date: Mon, 5 Aug 2019 12:48:12 +0530 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v2 10/19] RISC-V: KVM: Handle WFI exits for VCPU To: Paolo Bonzini Cc: Anup Patel , Palmer Dabbelt , Paul Walmsley , Radim K , Daniel Lezcano , Thomas Gleixner , Atish Patra , Alistair Francis , Damien Le Moal , Christoph Hellwig , "kvm@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Mon, Aug 5, 2019 at 12:44 PM Paolo Bonzini wrote: > > On 05/08/19 09:12, Anup Patel wrote: > > On Fri, Aug 2, 2019 at 2:33 PM Paolo Bonzini wrote: > >> > >> On 02/08/19 09:47, Anup Patel wrote: > >>> + if (!kvm_riscv_vcpu_has_interrupt(vcpu)) { > >> > >> This can be kvm_arch_vcpu_runnable instead, since kvm_vcpu_block will > >> check it anyway before sleeping. > > > > I think we can skip this check here because kvm_vcpu_block() is > > checking it anyway. Agree ?? > > Yes, but it's quite a bit faster to do this outside the call. There's a > bunch of setup before kvm_vcpu_block reaches that point, and it includes > mfences too once you add srcu_read_unlock/lock here. No problem, I will use kvm_arch_vcpu_runnable() here. Regards, Anup