Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > linux.kernel > #1211819 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2015-08-24 08:10 +0200 |
| Last post | 2015-08-26 23:40 +0200 |
| Articles | 3 — 2 participants |
Back to article view | Back to linux.kernel
linux-next: manual merge of the kvm-ppc tree with the tip tree Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au> - 2015-08-24 08:10 +0200
Re: linux-next: manual merge of the kvm-ppc tree with the tip tree Paul Mackerras <paulus@ozlabs.org> - 2015-08-26 20:30 +0200
Re: linux-next: manual merge of the kvm-ppc tree with the tip tree Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au> - 2015-08-26 23:40 +0200
| From | Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-24 08:10 +0200 |
| Subject | linux-next: manual merge of the kvm-ppc tree with the tip tree |
| Message-ID | <q0T7b-7Da-1@gated-at.bofh.it> |
Hi Alexander,
Today's linux-next merge of the kvm-ppc tree got a conflict in:
arch/powerpc/kvm/book3s_hv.c
between commit:
c56dadf39761 ("sched/preempt, powerpc, kvm: Use need_resched() instead of should_resched()")
from the tip tree and commit:
ec2571650826 ("KVM: PPC: Book3S HV: Make use of unused threads when running guests")
from the kvm-ppc tree.
I fixed it up (see below) and can carry the fix as necessary (no action
is required).
--
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell sfr@canb.auug.org.au
diff --cc arch/powerpc/kvm/book3s_hv.c
index a9f753fb73a8,fad52f226c12..000000000000
--- a/arch/powerpc/kvm/book3s_hv.c
+++ b/arch/powerpc/kvm/book3s_hv.c
@@@ -2178,11 -2670,12 +2670,13 @@@ static int kvmppc_run_vcpu(struct kvm_r
vc->runner = vcpu;
if (n_ceded == vc->n_runnable) {
kvmppc_vcore_blocked(vc);
- } else if (should_resched()) {
+ } else if (need_resched()) {
+ vc->vcore_state = VCORE_PREEMPT;
+ kvmppc_vcore_preempt(vc);
/* Let something else run */
cond_resched_lock(&vc->lock);
- vc->vcore_state = VCORE_INACTIVE;
+ if (vc->vcore_state == VCORE_PREEMPT)
+ kvmppc_vcore_end_preempt(vc);
} else {
kvmppc_run_core(vc);
}
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[toc] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Paul Mackerras <paulus@ozlabs.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-26 20:30 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <q1NCq-5hp-27@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #1211819 |
Hi Stephen,
On Mon, Aug 24, 2015 at 03:59:54PM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> Hi Alexander,
>
> Today's linux-next merge of the kvm-ppc tree got a conflict in:
>
> arch/powerpc/kvm/book3s_hv.c
>
> between commit:
>
> c56dadf39761 ("sched/preempt, powerpc, kvm: Use need_resched() instead of should_resched()")
>
> from the tip tree and commit:
>
> ec2571650826 ("KVM: PPC: Book3S HV: Make use of unused threads when running guests")
>
> from the kvm-ppc tree.
>
> I fixed it up (see below) and can carry the fix as necessary (no action
> is required).
The fix isn't quite correct (see below), but the error is benign.
> --
> Cheers,
> Stephen Rothwell sfr@canb.auug.org.au
>
> diff --cc arch/powerpc/kvm/book3s_hv.c
> index a9f753fb73a8,fad52f226c12..000000000000
> --- a/arch/powerpc/kvm/book3s_hv.c
> +++ b/arch/powerpc/kvm/book3s_hv.c
> @@@ -2178,11 -2670,12 +2670,13 @@@ static int kvmppc_run_vcpu(struct kvm_r
> vc->runner = vcpu;
> if (n_ceded == vc->n_runnable) {
> kvmppc_vcore_blocked(vc);
> - } else if (should_resched()) {
> + } else if (need_resched()) {
> + vc->vcore_state = VCORE_PREEMPT;
This line is removed in the kvm-ppc tree because it is now in the new
kvmppc_vcore_preempt() function. Thus we don't need this line in the
merge result. However, having it here just means that we set
vc->vcore_state to VCORE_PREEMPT twice.
> + kvmppc_vcore_preempt(vc);
> /* Let something else run */
> cond_resched_lock(&vc->lock);
> - vc->vcore_state = VCORE_INACTIVE;
> + if (vc->vcore_state == VCORE_PREEMPT)
> + kvmppc_vcore_end_preempt(vc);
> } else {
> kvmppc_run_core(vc);
> }
Regards,
Paul.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-26 23:40 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <q1QAi-12Y-17@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #1214110 |
Hi Paul,
On Wed, 26 Aug 2015 11:21:00 -0700 Paul Mackerras <paulus@ozlabs.org> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Aug 24, 2015 at 03:59:54PM +1000, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> > - } else if (should_resched()) {
> > + } else if (need_resched()) {
> > + vc->vcore_state = VCORE_PREEMPT;
>
> This line is removed in the kvm-ppc tree because it is now in the new
> kvmppc_vcore_preempt() function. Thus we don't need this line in the
> merge result. However, having it here just means that we set
> vc->vcore_state to VCORE_PREEMPT twice.
Thanks for the report. I have fixed up my reolution.
--
Cheers,
Stephen Rothwell sfr@canb.auug.org.au
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]
Back to top | Article view | linux.kernel
csiph-web