Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <1562915730-9490-1-git-send-email-wanpengli@tencent.com>
 <f95fbf72-090f-fb34-3c20-64508979f251@redhat.com> <db74a3a8-290e-edff-10ad-f861c60fbf8e@de.ibm.com>
 <e31024e4-f437-becd-a9e3-e1ea8cd2e0c7@redhat.com> <CANRm+Cw43DKqD17U+7-OPX3BmeNBThSe9-uWP2Atob+A0ApzLA@mail.gmail.com>
 <bc210153-fbae-25d4-bf6b-e31ceef36aa5@redhat.com> <CANRm+CxV0c3RSidV_GQtVuQ5fUUCT8vM=5LpodgDg+dFWhkH3w@mail.gmail.com>
 <f6f9c2ca-6fea-d7b5-9797-d180e42f50d5@redhat.com>
In-Reply-To: <f6f9c2ca-6fea-d7b5-9797-d180e42f50d5@redhat.com>
From:   Wanpeng Li <kernellwp@gmail.com>
Date:   Thu, 18 Jul 2019 19:40:04 +0800
Message-ID: <CANRm+CzJtSeCtuNHqGc588FMLzFvjFAcBhhipORsJSisk_KdRw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RESEND] KVM: Boosting vCPUs that are delivering interrupts
To:     Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>
Cc:     Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@de.ibm.com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, kvm <kvm@vger.kernel.org>,
        =?UTF-8?B?UmFkaW0gS3LEjW3DocWZ?= <rkrcmar@redhat.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, 18 Jul 2019 at 17:39, Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com> wrote:
>
> On 18/07/19 11:29, Wanpeng Li wrote:
> > On Thu, 18 Jul 2019 at 17:07, Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> On 18/07/19 10:43, Wanpeng Li wrote:
> >>>>> Isnt that done by the sched_in handler?
> >>>>
> >>>> I am a bit confused because, if it is done by the sched_in later, I
> >>>> don't understand why the sched_out handler hasn't set vcpu->preempted
> >>>> already.
> >>>>
> >>>> The s390 commit message is not very clear, but it talks about "a former
> >>>> sleeping cpu" that "gave up the cpu voluntarily".  Does "voluntarily"
> >>>> that mean it is in kvm_vcpu_block?  But then at least for x86 it would
> >>>
> >>> see the prepare_to_swait_exlusive() in kvm_vcpu_block(), the task will
> >>> be set in TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE state, kvm_sched_out will set
> >>> vcpu->preempted to true iff current->state == TASK_RUNNING.
> >>
> >> Ok, I was totally blind to that "if" around vcpu->preempted = true, it's
> >> obvious now.
> >>
> >> I think we need two flags then, for example vcpu->preempted and vcpu->ready:
> >>
> >> - kvm_sched_out sets both of them to true iff current->state == TASK_RUNNING
> >>
> >> - kvm_vcpu_kick sets vcpu->ready to true
> >>
> >> - kvm_sched_in clears both of them
>
> ... and also kvm_vcpu_on_spin should check vcpu->ready.  vcpu->preempted
> remains only for use by vmx_vcpu_pi_put.

Done in v2, please have a look. :)

Regards,
Wanpeng Li