[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Mon, 11 Nov 2019 14:53:54 +0100
From: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
To: Marcelo Tosatti <mtosatti@...hat.com>,
Zhenzhong Duan <zhenzhong.duan@...cle.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
joao.m.martins@...cle.com, rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com,
rkrcmar@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/5] KVM: ensure pool time is longer than block_ns
On 01/11/19 22:16, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
> if (!vcpu_valid_wakeup(vcpu)) {
> shrink_halt_poll_ns(vcpu);
> } else if (halt_poll_ns) {
> - if (block_ns <= vcpu->halt_poll_ns)
> + if (block_ns < vcpu->halt_poll_ns)
> ;
> /* we had a short halt and our poll time is too small */
> else if (block_ns < halt_poll_ns)
What about making this "if (!waited)"? The result would be very readable:
if (!waited)
;
/* we had a long block, shrink polling */
else if (block_ns > halt_poll_ns && vcpu->halt_poll_ns)
shrink_halt_poll_ns(vcpu);
/* we had a short halt and our poll time is too small */
else if (block_ns < halt_poll_ns && vcpu->halt_poll_ns < halt_poll_ns)
grow_halt_poll_ns(vcpu);
Paolo
Powered by blists - more mailing lists