[lkml]   [2019]   [Aug]   [2]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [patch 2/5] x86/kvm: Handle task_work on VMENTER/EXIT

> On Aug 2, 2019, at 3:22 PM, Thomas Gleixner <> wrote:
>> On Fri, 2 Aug 2019, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>>> On 01/08/19 23:47, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>>> Right you are about cond_resched() being called, but for SRCU this does not
>>> matter unless there is some way to do a synchronize operation on that SRCU
>>> entity. It might have some other performance side effect though.
>> I would use srcu_read_unlock/lock around the call.
>> However, I'm wondering if the API can be improved because basically we
>> have six functions for three checks of TIF flags. Does it make sense to
>> have something like task_has_request_flags and task_do_requests (names
>> are horrible I know) that can be used like
>> if (task_has_request_flags()) {
>> int err;
>> ...srcu_read_unlock...
>> // return -EINTR if signal_pending
>> err = task_do_requests();
>> if (err < 0)
>> goto exit_no_srcu_read_unlock;
>> ...srcu_read_lock...
>> }
>> taking care of all three cases with a single hook? This is important
>> especially because all these checks are done by all KVM architectures in
>> slightly different ways, and a unified API would be a good reason to
>> make all architectures look the same.
>> (Of course I could also define this unified API in virt/kvm/kvm_main.c,
>> so this is not blocking the series in any way!).
> You're not holding up something. Having a common function for this is
> definitely the right approach.
> As this is virt specific because it only checks for non arch specific bits
> (TIF_NOTIFY_RESUME should be available for all KVM archs) and the TIF bits
> are a subset of the available TIF bits because all others do not make any
> sense there, this really should be a common function for KVM so that all
> other archs which obviously lack a TIF_NOTIFY_RESUME check, can be fixed up
> and consolidated. If we add another TIF check later then we only have to do
> it in one place.

If we add a real API for this, can we make it, or a very similar API, work for exit_to_usermode_loop() too? Maybe:

bool usermode_work_pending();
bool guestmode_work_pending();

void do_usermode_work();
void do_guestmode_work();

The first two are called with IRQs off. The latter two are called with IRQs on.
 \ /
  Last update: 2019-08-03 00:39    [W:0.062 / U:8.860 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site