From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from lists.ozlabs.org (lists.ozlabs.org [112.213.38.117]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 50953C4332F for ; Tue, 14 Nov 2023 15:57:22 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: lists.ozlabs.org; dkim=fail reason="signature verification failed" (2048-bit key; unprotected) header.d=ibm.com header.i=@ibm.com header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=pp1 header.b=Q5avGCXT; dkim-atps=neutral Received: from boromir.ozlabs.org (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by lists.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4SV9sr56V7z3dBy for ; Wed, 15 Nov 2023 02:57:20 +1100 (AEDT) Authentication-Results: lists.ozlabs.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key; unprotected) header.d=ibm.com header.i=@ibm.com header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=pp1 header.b=Q5avGCXT; dkim-atps=neutral Authentication-Results: lists.ozlabs.org; spf=none (no SPF record) smtp.mailfrom=linux.vnet.ibm.com (client-ip=148.163.156.1; helo=mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com; envelope-from=srikar@linux.vnet.ibm.com; receiver=lists.ozlabs.org) Received: from mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com [148.163.156.1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4SV9rt2H9Tz2yVG for ; Wed, 15 Nov 2023 02:56:29 +1100 (AEDT) Received: from pps.filterd (m0353728.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (8.17.1.19/8.17.1.19) with ESMTP id 3AEFggi7008159; Tue, 14 Nov 2023 15:56:17 GMT DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=ibm.com; h=date : from : to : cc : subject : message-id : reply-to : references : mime-version : content-type : in-reply-to; s=pp1; bh=YLb/ytjwOAf1kAB5jgoYszAQwRYlUTzi/Da/EFG41p0=; b=Q5avGCXTPkEHo+0or/HTjq3a1uSOzhsxBtgXiw/kJnukWTibdmPd7CTvR/6VGKuk8+r6 jDEp3+K4okws0Cxh6aNPZmpUdAkKclh/gMdpf5ZgeD7yrpMBIMGiDUm1q7ml0DmKIIEI GJoNfIghi/oBe6mlXq3h4+BCyCm0ApYb+ZnYPA4PV6psXGvuaRid6pQn8jKRE6KSlOop JGNzXHfXCqyOYf4Duony6Ko3AU7waeICyusV/GuH3swjJdhto761hCKMrUfhwmPI9YkN xJ5SDd7UoHBcU/rC347jdZkI0y/SKIYbNIpR21X9RdD0qH7CjUNlwJeyhyKcDbXNuDau WA== Received: from pps.reinject (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (PPS) with ESMTPS id 3ucbs4gjfj-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Tue, 14 Nov 2023 15:56:17 +0000 Received: from m0353728.ppops.net (m0353728.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by pps.reinject (8.17.1.5/8.17.1.5) with ESMTP id 3AEFh1op010629; Tue, 14 Nov 2023 15:56:17 GMT Received: from ppma11.dal12v.mail.ibm.com (db.9e.1632.ip4.static.sl-reverse.com [50.22.158.219]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (PPS) with ESMTPS id 3ucbs4gjd2-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Tue, 14 Nov 2023 15:56:17 +0000 Received: from pps.filterd (ppma11.dal12v.mail.ibm.com [127.0.0.1]) by ppma11.dal12v.mail.ibm.com (8.17.1.19/8.17.1.19) with ESMTP id 3AEE6Jvs011397; Tue, 14 Nov 2023 15:56:14 GMT Received: from smtprelay03.fra02v.mail.ibm.com ([9.218.2.224]) by ppma11.dal12v.mail.ibm.com (PPS) with ESMTPS id 3uapn1gced-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Tue, 14 Nov 2023 15:56:14 +0000 Received: from smtpav07.fra02v.mail.ibm.com (smtpav07.fra02v.mail.ibm.com [10.20.54.106]) by smtprelay03.fra02v.mail.ibm.com (8.14.9/8.14.9/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id 3AEFuC5q16908880 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK); Tue, 14 Nov 2023 15:56:12 GMT Received: from smtpav07.fra02v.mail.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5D06E20040; Tue, 14 Nov 2023 15:56:12 +0000 (GMT) Received: from smtpav07.fra02v.mail.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2B4CA20043; Tue, 14 Nov 2023 15:56:11 +0000 (GMT) Received: from linux.vnet.ibm.com (unknown [9.126.150.29]) by smtpav07.fra02v.mail.ibm.com (Postfix) with SMTP; Tue, 14 Nov 2023 15:56:10 +0000 (GMT) Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2023 21:26:10 +0530 From: Srikar Dronamraju To: Aneesh Kumar K V Subject: Re: [PATCH] powerpc/sched: Cleanup vcpu_is_preempted() Message-ID: <20231114155610.GS2194132@linux.vnet.ibm.com> References: <20231114071219.198222-1-aneesh.kumar@linux.ibm.com> <20231114094622.GR2194132@linux.vnet.ibm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: X-TM-AS-GCONF: 00 X-Proofpoint-GUID: oQhIF2F5XXmlB3_4CkPSXAWuu1095Bbp X-Proofpoint-ORIG-GUID: P3DyFbOesgabKMw5Q3IFW58Mkd4dGjfu X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=baseguard engine=ICAP:2.0.272,Aquarius:18.0.987,Hydra:6.0.619,FMLib:17.11.176.26 definitions=2023-11-14_16,2023-11-09_01,2023-05-22_02 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_notspam policy=outbound score=0 phishscore=0 mlxscore=0 suspectscore=0 spamscore=0 impostorscore=0 adultscore=0 lowpriorityscore=0 clxscore=1015 malwarescore=0 mlxlogscore=568 priorityscore=1501 bulkscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.12.0-2311060000 definitions=main-2311140123 X-BeenThere: linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Reply-To: Srikar Dronamraju Cc: linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, npiggin@gmail.com Errors-To: linuxppc-dev-bounces+linuxppc-dev=archiver.kernel.org@lists.ozlabs.org Sender: "Linuxppc-dev" * Aneesh Kumar K V [2023-11-14 15:45:35]: > On 11/14/23 3:16 PM, Srikar Dronamraju wrote: > > * Aneesh Kumar K.V [2023-11-14 12:42:19]: > > > >> No functional change in this patch. A helper is added to find if > >> vcpu is dispatched by hypervisor. Use that instead of opencoding. > >> Also clarify some of the comments. > >> > > > > If we are introducing vcpu_is_dispatched, we should remove > > yield_count_of() and use vcpu_is_dispatched everwhere > > > > No point in having yield_count_of() and vcpu_is_dispatched, since > > yield_count_of() is only used to check if we are running in OS or not. > > > > We do > > yield_count = yield_count_of(owner); > yield_to_preempted(owner, yield_count); yield_to_preempted is defined just below yield_count_of() and we are anyway passing the CPU, so we dont have to pass yield_count to yield_to_preempted -- Thanks and Regards Srikar Dronamraju