Hi Volodymyr,
On 18/09/2019 19:50, Volodymyr Babchuk wrote:
We can check for hypercall_preempt_check() in the loop inside optee_relinquish_resources() to increase hypervisor responsiveness in case if preemption is required.
Signed-off-by: Volodymyr Babchuk volodymyr_babchuk@epam.com
Acked-by: Julien Grall julien.grall@arm.com
Cheers,
Changes from v1:
- Removed extra hypercall_preempt_check()
- Updated the commit message
xen/arch/arm/tee/optee.c | 13 +++++-------- 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
diff --git a/xen/arch/arm/tee/optee.c b/xen/arch/arm/tee/optee.c index d64e9c3b85..55d11b91a9 100644 --- a/xen/arch/arm/tee/optee.c +++ b/xen/arch/arm/tee/optee.c @@ -633,17 +633,14 @@ static int optee_relinquish_resources(struct domain *d) list_for_each_entry_safe( shm_rpc, shm_rpc_tmp, &ctx->shm_rpc_list, list ) free_shm_rpc(ctx, shm_rpc->cookie);
- if ( hypercall_preempt_check() )
return -ERESTART;- /*
* TODO: Guest can pin up to MAX_TOTAL_SMH_BUF_PG pages and all of* them will be put in this loop. It is worth considering to* check for preemption inside the loop.*/ list_for_each_entry_safe( optee_shm_buf, optee_shm_buf_tmp, &ctx->optee_shm_buf_list, list )
- {
if ( hypercall_preempt_check() )return -ERESTART;free_optee_shm_buf(ctx, optee_shm_buf->cookie);- }
if ( hypercall_preempt_check() ) return -ERESTART;