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: <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>
 <458f6b85-cdb2-5e6b-6730-4875f0e4cdba@redhat.com>
In-Reply-To: <458f6b85-cdb2-5e6b-6730-4875f0e4cdba@redhat.com>
From:   Anup Patel <anup@brainfault.org>
Date:   Mon, 5 Aug 2019 12:48:12 +0530
Message-ID: <CAAhSdy02bZAbyK4TGzO0jYRCTCFwexzA_iu7GNRh-07NZ6fuFw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v2 10/19] RISC-V: KVM: Handle WFI exits for VCPU
To:     Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>
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>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, Aug 5, 2019 at 12:44 PM Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com> wrote:
>
> 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.

No problem, I will use kvm_arch_vcpu_runnable() here.

Regards,
Anup