From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Raghavendra K T <raghavendra.kt@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC V2 2/2] kvm PLE handler: Choose better candidate for
 directed yield
Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2012 08:30:50 +0530
Message-ID: <4FFCEC62.5090200@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
References: <20120710193056.16440.40112.sendpatchset@codeblue> <20120710193138.16440.31791.sendpatchset@codeblue> <20120710205018.GB16986@gmail.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
	Marcelo Tosatti <mtosatti@redhat.com>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, Avi Kivity <avi@redhat.com>,
	Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com>,
	S390 <linux-s390@vger.kernel.org>,
	Carsten Otte <cotte@de.ibm.com>,
	Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@de.ibm.com>,
	KVM <kvm@vger.kernel.org>, chegu vinod <chegu_vinod@hp.com>,
	"Andrew M. Theurer" <habanero@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, X86 <x86@kernel.org>,
	Gleb Natapov <gleb@redhat.com>, linux390@de.ibm.com,
	Srivatsa Vaddagiri <srivatsa.vaddagiri@gmail.com>,
	Joerg Roedel <joerg.roedel@amd.com>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
Return-path: <kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: from e23smtp06.au.ibm.com ([202.81.31.148]:46319 "EHLO
	e23smtp06.au.ibm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1751846Ab2GKDDY (ORCPT <rfc822;kvm@vger.kernel.org>);
	Tue, 10 Jul 2012 23:03:24 -0400
Received: from /spool/local
	by e23smtp06.au.ibm.com with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted
	for <kvm@vger.kernel.org> from <raghavendra.kt@linux.vnet.ibm.com>;
	Wed, 11 Jul 2012 02:56:35 +1000
In-Reply-To: <20120710205018.GB16986@gmail.com>
Sender: kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <kvm.vger.kernel.org>

On 07/11/2012 02:20 AM, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> * Raghavendra K T<raghavendra.kt@linux.vnet.ibm.com>  wrote:
>
>> --- a/virt/kvm/kvm_main.c
>> +++ b/virt/kvm/kvm_main.c
>> @@ -1595,6 +1595,9 @@ void kvm_vcpu_on_spin(struct kvm_vcpu *me)
>>   				continue;
>>   			if (waitqueue_active(&vcpu->wq))
>>   				continue;
>> +			if (!kvm_arch_vcpu_check_and_update_eligible(vcpu)) {
>> +				continue;
>> +			}
>
> Saw this fly by for a second time and now it annoyed me enough
> to mention it: those curly braces are superfluous and should be
> dropped.
>

Oops! Sorry.will remove {} and resend with Rik's reviewed-by. TBH,
block got simplified after iterations (local), this one leftout. my
mistake.