On 18.07.19 13:39, Wanpeng Li wrote:
> From: Wanpeng Li <wanpen...@tencent.com>
>
> Use kvm_vcpu_wake_up() in kvm_s390_vcpu_wakeup().
>
> Suggested-by: Paolo Bonzini <pbonz...@redhat.com>
> Cc: Paolo Bonzini <pbonz...@redhat.com>
> Cc: Radim Krčmář <rkrc...@redhat.com>
> Cc: Christian Borntraeger <borntrae...@de.ibm.com>
> Signed-off-by: Wanpeng Li <wanpen...@tencent.com>
with patch1 this looks good.
> ---
> arch/s390/kvm/interrupt.c | 15 +--------------
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 14 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/arch/s390/kvm/interrupt.c b/arch/s390/kvm/interrupt.c
> index 26f8bf4..881cc5a 100644
> --- a/arch/s390/kvm/interrupt.c
> +++ b/arch/s390/kvm/interrupt.c
> @@ -1229,21 +1229,8 @@ void kvm_s390_vcpu_wakeup(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
> * in kvm_vcpu_block without having the waitqueue set (polling)
> */
> vcpu->valid_wakeup = true;
> - /*
> - * This is mostly to document, that the read in swait_active could
> - * be moved before other stores, leading to subtle races.
> - * All current users do not store or use an atomic like update
> - */
> - smp_mb__after_atomic();
> - if (swait_active(&vcpu->wq)) {
> - /*
> - * The vcpu gave up the cpu voluntarily, mark it as a good
> - * yield-candidate.
> - */
> + if (kvm_vcpu_wake_up(vcpu))
> vcpu->ready = true;
> - swake_up_one(&vcpu->wq);
> - vcpu->stat.halt_wakeup++;
> - }
> /*
> * The VCPU might not be sleeping but is executing the VSIE. Let's
> * kick it, so it leaves the SIE to process the request.
>
