linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH RFC] kvm: x86: add halt

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <54D3CF2C.6030203@redhat.com>
Date:	Thu, 05 Feb 2015 21:14:36 +0100
From:	Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
To:	Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
	Jan Kiszka <jan.kiszka@...mens.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kvm@...r.kernel.org
CC:	rkrcmar@...hat.com, mtosatti@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC] kvm: x86: add halt_poll module parameter



On 05/02/2015 20:23, Rik van Riel wrote:
>> > 3) long term anyway we want it to auto tune, which is better than tuning
>> > it per-VM.
> We may want to auto tune it per VM.

We may even want to auto tune it per VCPU.

> However, if we make auto tuning work well, I do not
> think we want to expose a user visible tunable per
> VM, and commit to keeping that kind of interface
> around forever.

Exactly.  We probably want module parameters to tune the minimum/maximum
values (which includes the special cases of disabling polling
altogether, and disabling the autotuning while leaving polling enabled),
but committing to a per-VM interface is premature.

Paolo
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/