[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <573DD5C9.2000108@de.ibm.com>
Date: Thu, 19 May 2016 17:03:37 +0200
From: Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@...ibm.com>
To: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
Wanpeng Li <kernellwp@...il.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
kvm@...r.kernel.org
Cc: Wanpeng Li <wanpeng.li@...mail.com>,
Radim Krčmář <rkrcmar@...hat.com>,
David Matlack <dmatlack@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] KVM: halt-polling: poll if emulated lapic timer will
fire soon
On 05/19/2016 04:56 PM, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>
>
> On 19/05/2016 16:52, Christian Borntraeger wrote:
>>>> Would this work too and be simpler?
>> Hmm, your patch does only fiddle with the grow/shrink logic (which might
>> be a good idea independently of this change), but the original patch
>> actually takes into account that we have a guaranteed maximum time by a
>> wakeup timer - IOW we know exactly what the maximum poll time is.
>>
>
> Yes, it's different. The question is whether a 10us poll (40,000 clock
> cycles) has an impact even if it's sometimes wrong.
Valid question. As I said, this change might be something good independent from
the original patch. (it might make it unnecessary, though) On the other hand
I can handle ~30 guest entry/exit cycles of a simple exit like diag9c.
Needs measurement.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists