From: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>
To: Davidlohr Bueso <dave@stgolabs.net>
Cc: Marc Zyngier <maz@kernel.org>,
tglx@linutronix.de, kvm@vger.kernel.org,
Davidlohr Bueso <dbueso@suse.de>,
peterz@infradead.org, 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 v2] kvm: Replace vcpu->swait with rcuwait
Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2020 21:52:47 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <ab78bbc8-aa03-6e88-940e-5e1c041f48e4@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20200421180733.xrl5ta6cuo2weuva@linux-p48b>
On 21/04/20 20:07, Davidlohr Bueso wrote:
>>
>
> I should have looked closer here - I was thinking about the return
> value of rcuwait_wait_event. Yes, that signal_pending check you
> mention makes the sleep semantics change bogus as interruptible is no
> longer just to avoid contributing to the load balance.
>
> And yes, unfortunately adding prepare_to and finish_rcuwait() looks
> like the most reasonable approach to keeping the tracepoint
> semantics. I also considered extending rcuwait_wait_event() by
> another parameter to pass back to the caller if there was any wait at
> all, but that enlarges the call and is probably less generic.
Yes, at some point the usual prepare_to/finish APIs become simpler.
> I'll send another version keeping the current sleep and tracepoint
> semantics.
Thanks---and sorry, I should have noticed that way earlier.
Paolo
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-04-21 19:52 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 20+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-03-24 4:44 [PATCH -tip 0/4] kvm: Use rcuwait for vcpu blocking Davidlohr Bueso
2020-03-24 4:44 ` [PATCH 1/4] rcuwait: Fix stale wake call name in comment Davidlohr Bueso
2020-03-24 4:44 ` [PATCH 2/4] rcuwait: Let rcuwait_wake_up() return whether or not a task was awoken Davidlohr Bueso
2020-03-24 4:44 ` [PATCH 3/4] kvm: Replace vcpu->swait with rcuwait Davidlohr Bueso
2020-03-24 12:07 ` kbuild test robot
2020-03-24 16:47 ` kbuild test robot
2020-03-24 17:56 ` Davidlohr Bueso
2020-03-25 17:09 ` Paolo Bonzini
2020-04-14 21:12 ` Davidlohr Bueso
2020-04-15 12:11 ` Paolo Bonzini
2020-04-20 16:41 ` [PATCH v2] " Davidlohr Bueso
2020-04-20 17:12 ` Marc Zyngier
2020-04-20 17:25 ` Paolo Bonzini
2020-04-20 20:56 ` Davidlohr Bueso
2020-04-20 21:04 ` Paolo Bonzini
2020-04-20 21:50 ` Davidlohr Bueso
2020-04-21 9:43 ` Paolo Bonzini
2020-04-21 18:07 ` Davidlohr Bueso
2020-04-21 19:52 ` Paolo Bonzini [this message]
2020-03-24 4:44 ` [PATCH 4/4] sched/swait: Reword some of the main description Davidlohr Bueso
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=ab78bbc8-aa03-6e88-940e-5e1c041f48e4@redhat.com \
--to=pbonzini@redhat.com \
--cc=bigeasy@linutronix.de \
--cc=dave@stgolabs.net \
--cc=dbueso@suse.de \
--cc=joel@joelfernandes.org \
--cc=kvm@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mips@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=maz@kernel.org \
--cc=paulus@ozlabs.org \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=will@kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®