Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Date:   Thu, 23 Apr 2020 11:19:11 +0200
From:   Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To:     Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>
Cc:     Marc Zyngier <maz@kernel.org>, Davidlohr Bueso <dave@stgolabs.net>,
        tglx@linutronix.de, kvm@vger.kernel.org,
        Davidlohr Bueso <dbueso@suse.de>,
        torvalds@linux-foundation.org, bigeasy@linutronix.de,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, rostedt@goodmis.org,
        linux-mips@vger.kernel.org, Paul Mackerras <paulus@ozlabs.org>,
        joel@joelfernandes.org, will@kernel.org,
        kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/5] kvm: Replace vcpu->swait with rcuwait
Message-ID: <20200423091911.GP20730@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
References: <20200422040739.18601-1-dave@stgolabs.net>
 <20200422040739.18601-5-dave@stgolabs.net>
 <20200423094140.69909bbb@why>
 <f07f6f55-9339-04b0-3877-d3240abd6d9c@redhat.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <f07f6f55-9339-04b0-3877-d3240abd6d9c@redhat.com>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, Apr 23, 2020 at 10:57:57AM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> On 23/04/20 10:41, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> >>  
> >> -	if (swait_active(kvm_arch_vcpu_wq(vcpu)))
> >> +	if (rcu_dereference(kvm_arch_vpu_get_wait(vcpu)) != NULL)
> > This doesn't compile (wrong function name, and rcu_dereference takes a
> > variable). But whatever it would do if we fixed it looks dodgy. it isn't
> > the rcuwait structure that you want to dereference, but rcuwait->task
> > (we are checking whether we are called because we are blocking or being
> > preempted).
> > 
> 
> Yes, I agree.  Replacing swait with rcuwait is all good, but please make
> the API look the same first.  Just like you added prepare_to_rcuwait and
> finish_rcuwait, let's add rcuwait_active as well.
> 
> Actually let's do it like this:
> 
> 1) Davidlohr, please post only patches 1-3 to "equalize" the swait and
> rcuwait APIs.
> 
> 2) Peter, please prepare a topic branch for those, or provide Acked-by

I don't think I have anything that conflicts with this, so sure, take
the whole thing through KVM.

For 1-3 (and I'll send a small niggle for 3 right after this):

Acked-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org>

I'll keep 5 as it is unrelated.