* linux-next: manual merge of the kvm-ppc tree with the tip tree
@ 2015-08-24 5:59 Stephen Rothwell
2015-08-26 18:21 ` Paul Mackerras
0 siblings, 1 reply; 3+ messages in thread
From: Stephen Rothwell @ 2015-08-24 5:59 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Alexander Graf, Thomas Gleixner, Ingo Molnar, H. Peter Anvin,
Peter Zijlstra
Cc: linux-next, linux-kernel, Konstantin Khlebnikov, Paul Mackerras
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);
}
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread* Re: linux-next: manual merge of the kvm-ppc tree with the tip tree
2015-08-24 5:59 linux-next: manual merge of the kvm-ppc tree with the tip tree Stephen Rothwell
@ 2015-08-26 18:21 ` Paul Mackerras
2015-08-26 21:30 ` Stephen Rothwell
0 siblings, 1 reply; 3+ messages in thread
From: Paul Mackerras @ 2015-08-26 18:21 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Stephen Rothwell
Cc: Alexander Graf, Thomas Gleixner, Ingo Molnar, H. Peter Anvin,
Peter Zijlstra, linux-next, linux-kernel, Konstantin Khlebnikov
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.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread* Re: linux-next: manual merge of the kvm-ppc tree with the tip tree
2015-08-26 18:21 ` Paul Mackerras
@ 2015-08-26 21:30 ` Stephen Rothwell
0 siblings, 0 replies; 3+ messages in thread
From: Stephen Rothwell @ 2015-08-26 21:30 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Paul Mackerras
Cc: Alexander Graf, Thomas Gleixner, Ingo Molnar, H. Peter Anvin,
Peter Zijlstra, linux-next, linux-kernel, Konstantin Khlebnikov
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
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2015-08-26 21:30 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2015-08-24 5:59 linux-next: manual merge of the kvm-ppc tree with the tip tree Stephen Rothwell
2015-08-26 18:21 ` Paul Mackerras
2015-08-26 21:30 ` Stephen Rothwell
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox