Re: [PATCH] s390x/spinlock: Provide vcpu_is_preempted globally

[Christian Borntraeger]

On 09/29/2016 03:11 PM, Martin Schwidefsky wrote:
> On Thu, 29 Sep 2016 13:54:16 +0200
> Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
>> this implements the s390 backend for commit
>> "kernel/sched: introduce vcpu preempted check interface"
>> by simply reusing the existing cpu_is_preempted function.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@xxxxxxxxxx>
>> ---
>> Martin, Heiko,
>>
>> this patch is a minimal change by not touching all existing users of
>> cpu_is_preempted in spinlock.c. If you want it differently, let me
>> know.
>>
>>
>>  arch/s390/include/asm/spinlock.h | 7 +++++++
>>  arch/s390/lib/spinlock.c         | 3 ++-
>>  2 files changed, 9 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/arch/s390/include/asm/spinlock.h b/arch/s390/include/asm/spinlock.h
>> index 63ebf37..6e82986 100644
>> --- a/arch/s390/include/asm/spinlock.h
>> +++ b/arch/s390/include/asm/spinlock.h
>> @@ -21,6 +21,13 @@ _raw_compare_and_swap(unsigned int *lock, unsigned int old, unsigned int new)
>>  	return __sync_bool_compare_and_swap(lock, old, new);
>>  }
>>
>> +int arch_vcpu_is_preempted(int cpu);
>> +#define vcpu_is_preempted cpu_is_preempted
>> +static inline bool cpu_is_preempted(int cpu)
>> +{
>> +	return arch_vcpu_is_preempted(cpu);
>> +}
>> +
>>  /*
>>   * Simple spin lock operations.  There are two variants, one clears IRQ's
>>   * on the local processor, one does not.
>> diff --git a/arch/s390/lib/spinlock.c b/arch/s390/lib/spinlock.c
>> index e5f50a7..9f473c8 100644
>> --- a/arch/s390/lib/spinlock.c
>> +++ b/arch/s390/lib/spinlock.c
>> @@ -37,7 +37,7 @@ static inline void _raw_compare_and_delay(unsigned int *lock, unsigned int old)
>>  	asm(".insn rsy,0xeb0000000022,%0,0,%1" : : "d" (old), "Q" (*lock));
>>  }
>>
>> -static inline int cpu_is_preempted(int cpu)
>> +int arch_vcpu_is_preempted(int cpu)
>>  {
>>  	if (test_cpu_flag_of(CIF_ENABLED_WAIT, cpu))
>>  		return 0;
>> @@ -45,6 +45,7 @@ static inline int cpu_is_preempted(int cpu)
>>  		return 0;
>>  	return 1;
>>  }
>> +EXPORT_SYMBOL(arch_vcpu_is_preempted);
>>
>>  void arch_spin_lock_wait(arch_spinlock_t *lp)
>>  {
> 
> Hmm, if I look at the code we now have an additional function for
> the spinlock loops. The call arch_vcpu_is_preempted which test
> CIF_ENABLED_WAIT and then calls smp_vcpu_scheduled(). The test
> used to be inline.
> 
> A better solution would be to move the CIF_ENABLED_WAIT test to the
> smp_vcpu_scheduled() function, rename it to arch_vcpu_is_preempted()
> and then export that function.
 The cpu_is_preempted() function is
> replaced by arch_vcpu_is_preempted() which does make a lot of sense,
> no?
> 

Yes that makes sense, will spin a v2.