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;
Subject: Re: [PATCH 05/14] KVM: s390: Clear valid_wakeup in
 kvm_s390_handle_wait(), not in arch hook
To:     Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com>,
        Marc Zyngier <maz@kernel.org>,
        Huacai Chen <chenhuacai@kernel.org>,
        Aleksandar Markovic <aleksandar.qemu.devel@gmail.com>,
        Paul Mackerras <paulus@ozlabs.org>,
        Janosch Frank <frankja@linux.ibm.com>,
        Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>
Cc:     James Morse <james.morse@arm.com>,
        Alexandru Elisei <alexandru.elisei@arm.com>,
        Suzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@arm.com>,
        David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>,
        Cornelia Huck <cohuck@redhat.com>,
        Claudio Imbrenda <imbrenda@linux.ibm.com>,
        Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@redhat.com>,
        Wanpeng Li <wanpengli@tencent.com>,
        Jim Mattson <jmattson@google.com>,
        Joerg Roedel <joro@8bytes.org>,
        linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu,
        linux-mips@vger.kernel.org, kvm@vger.kernel.org,
        kvm-ppc@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        David Matlack <dmatlack@google.com>,
        Jing Zhang <jingzhangos@google.com>
References: <20210925005528.1145584-1-seanjc@google.com>
 <20210925005528.1145584-6-seanjc@google.com>
From:   Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@de.ibm.com>
Message-ID: <daa2e1e4-7e64-fe2f-5bae-9ec8d7df2428@de.ibm.com>
Date:   Mon, 27 Sep 2021 08:58:17 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/78.13.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20210925005528.1145584-6-seanjc@google.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk


Am 25.09.21 um 02:55 schrieb Sean Christopherson:
> Move the clearing of valid_wakeup out of kvm_arch_vcpu_block_finish() so
> that a future patch can drop said arch hook.  Unlike the other blocking-
> related arch hooks (vcpu_blocking/unblocking()), vcpu_block_finish() needs
> to be called even if the KVM doesn't actually block the vCPU.  This will
> allow future patches to differentiate between truly blocking the vCPU and
> emulating a halt condition without introducing a contradiction.
> 
> Alternatively, the hook could be renamed to kvm_arch_vcpu_halt_finish(),
> but there's literally one call site in s390, and future cleanup can also
> be done to handle valid_wakeup fully within kvm_s390_handle_wait() and
> allow generic KVM to drop vcpu_valid_wakeup().
> 
> No functional change intended.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com>

Reviewed-by: Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@de.ibm.com>
> ---
>   arch/s390/kvm/interrupt.c | 1 +
>   arch/s390/kvm/kvm-s390.c  | 2 +-
>   2 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/arch/s390/kvm/interrupt.c b/arch/s390/kvm/interrupt.c
> index 10722455fd02..520450a7956f 100644
> --- a/arch/s390/kvm/interrupt.c
> +++ b/arch/s390/kvm/interrupt.c
> @@ -1336,6 +1336,7 @@ int kvm_s390_handle_wait(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
>   no_timer:
>   	srcu_read_unlock(&vcpu->kvm->srcu, vcpu->srcu_idx);
>   	kvm_vcpu_block(vcpu);
> +	vcpu->valid_wakeup = false;
>   	__unset_cpu_idle(vcpu);
>   	vcpu->srcu_idx = srcu_read_lock(&vcpu->kvm->srcu);
>   
> diff --git a/arch/s390/kvm/kvm-s390.c b/arch/s390/kvm/kvm-s390.c
> index 7cabe6778b1b..08ed68639a21 100644
> --- a/arch/s390/kvm/kvm-s390.c
> +++ b/arch/s390/kvm/kvm-s390.c
> @@ -5082,7 +5082,7 @@ static inline unsigned long nonhyp_mask(int i)
>   
>   void kvm_arch_vcpu_block_finish(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
>   {
> -	vcpu->valid_wakeup = false;
> +

maybe just remove the line instead of adding an empty one?

>   }
>   
>   static int __init kvm_s390_init(void)
>