[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <fd7acd49-9d37-4495-79cd-250e3b54cac2@redhat.com>
Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2017 14:07:56 +0200
From: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
To: Yang Zhang <yang.zhang.wz@...il.com>, tglx@...utronix.de,
mingo@...hat.com, hpa@...or.com
Cc: x86@...nel.org, corbet@....net, tony.luck@...el.com, bp@...en8.de,
peterz@...radead.org, mchehab@...nel.org,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org, krzk@...nel.org, jpoimboe@...hat.com,
luto@...nel.org, borntraeger@...ibm.com, thgarnie@...gle.com,
rgerst@...il.com, minipli@...glemail.com,
douly.fnst@...fujitsu.com, nicstange@...il.com, fweisbec@...il.com,
dvlasenk@...hat.com, bristot@...hat.com,
yamada.masahiro@...ionext.com, mika.westerberg@...ux.intel.com,
yu.c.chen@...el.com, aaron.lu@...el.com, rostedt@...dmis.org,
me@...ehuey.com, len.brown@...el.com, prarit@...hat.com,
hidehiro.kawai.ez@...achi.com, fengtiantian@...wei.com,
pmladek@...e.com, jeyu@...hat.com, Larry.Finger@...inger.net,
zijun_hu@....com, luisbg@....samsung.com, johannes.berg@...el.com,
niklas.soderlund+renesas@...natech.se, zlpnobody@...il.com,
adobriyan@...il.com, fgao@...ai8.com, ebiederm@...ssion.com,
subashab@...eaurora.org, arnd@...db.de, matt@...eblueprint.co.uk,
mgorman@...hsingularity.net, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-doc@...r.kernel.org, linux-edac@...r.kernel.org,
kvm@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] x86/idle: use dynamic halt poll
On 27/06/2017 13:22, Yang Zhang wrote:
>>>
>>> Regarding the good/bad idea part, KVM's polling is made much more
>>> acceptable by single_task_running(). At least you need to integrate it
>>> with paravirtualization. If the VM is scheduled out, you shrink the
>>> polling period. There is already vcpu_is_preempted for this, it is used
>>> by mutexes.
>>
>> I have considered single_task_running() before. But since there is no
>> such paravirtual interface currently and i am not sure whether it is a
>> information leak from host if introducing such interface, so i didn't do
>> it. Do you mean vcpu_is_preempted can do the same thing? I check the
>> code and seems it only tells whether the VCPU is scheduled out or not
>> which cannot satisfy the needs.
>
> Can you help to answer my confusion? I have double checked the code, but
> still not get your point. Do you think it is necessary to introduce an
> paravirtual interface to expose single_task_running() to guest?
I think vcpu_is_preempted is a good enough replacement.
Paolo
Powered by blists - more mailing lists