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;
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v2 10/19] RISC-V: KVM: Handle WFI exits for VCPU
To:     Anup Patel <anup@brainfault.org>
Cc:     Anup Patel <Anup.Patel@wdc.com>,
        Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@sifive.com>,
        Paul Walmsley <paul.walmsley@sifive.com>,
        Radim K <rkrcmar@redhat.com>,
        Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@linaro.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        Atish Patra <Atish.Patra@wdc.com>,
        Alistair Francis <Alistair.Francis@wdc.com>,
        Damien Le Moal <Damien.LeMoal@wdc.com>,
        Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>,
        "kvm@vger.kernel.org" <kvm@vger.kernel.org>,
        "linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org" <linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org>,
        "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
References: <20190802074620.115029-1-anup.patel@wdc.com>
 <20190802074620.115029-11-anup.patel@wdc.com>
 <5b966171-4d11-237d-5a43-dc881efb7d0a@redhat.com>
 <CAAhSdy0BVqagYTTnaG2hwsxxM51ZZ2QpJbZtQ21v__8UaXCOWA@mail.gmail.com>
From:   Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>
Openpgp: preference=signencrypt
Message-ID: <458f6b85-cdb2-5e6b-6730-4875f0e4cdba@redhat.com>
Date:   Mon, 5 Aug 2019 09:14:44 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/60.8.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAAhSdy0BVqagYTTnaG2hwsxxM51ZZ2QpJbZtQ21v__8UaXCOWA@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On 05/08/19 09:12, Anup Patel wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 2, 2019 at 2:33 PM Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com> 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.

Paolo