[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20210925005528.1145584-4-seanjc@google.com>
Date: Fri, 24 Sep 2021 17:55:17 -0700
From: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>
To: Marc Zyngier <maz@...nel.org>, Huacai Chen <chenhuacai@...nel.org>,
Aleksandar Markovic <aleksandar.qemu.devel@...il.com>,
Paul Mackerras <paulus@...abs.org>,
Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@...ibm.com>,
Janosch Frank <frankja@...ux.ibm.com>,
Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
Cc: James Morse <james.morse@....com>,
Alexandru Elisei <alexandru.elisei@....com>,
Suzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@....com>,
David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>,
Cornelia Huck <cohuck@...hat.com>,
Claudio Imbrenda <imbrenda@...ux.ibm.com>,
Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>,
Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@...hat.com>,
Wanpeng Li <wanpengli@...cent.com>,
Jim Mattson <jmattson@...gle.com>,
Joerg Roedel <joro@...tes.org>,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, kvmarm@...ts.cs.columbia.edu,
linux-mips@...r.kernel.org, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
kvm-ppc@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
David Matlack <dmatlack@...gle.com>,
Jing Zhang <jingzhangos@...gle.com>
Subject: [PATCH 03/14] KVM: Refactor and document halt-polling stats update helper
Add a comment to document that halt-polling is considered successful even
if the polling loop itself didn't detect a wake event, i.e. if a wake
event was detect in the final kvm_vcpu_check_block(). Invert the param
to the update helper so that the helper is a dumb function that is "told"
whether or not polling was successful, as opposed to having it determinine
success/failure based on blocking behavior.
Opportunistically tweak the params to the update helper to reduce the
line length for the call site so that it fits on a single line, and so
that the prototype conforms to the more traditional kernel style.
No functional change intended.
Signed-off-by: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>
---
virt/kvm/kvm_main.c | 20 +++++++++++++-------
1 file changed, 13 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
diff --git a/virt/kvm/kvm_main.c b/virt/kvm/kvm_main.c
index 8b33f5045b4d..12fe91a0a4c8 100644
--- a/virt/kvm/kvm_main.c
+++ b/virt/kvm/kvm_main.c
@@ -3199,13 +3199,15 @@ static int kvm_vcpu_check_block(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
return ret;
}
-static inline void
-update_halt_poll_stats(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, u64 poll_ns, bool waited)
+static inline void update_halt_poll_stats(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu, ktime_t start,
+ ktime_t end, bool success)
{
- if (waited)
- vcpu->stat.generic.halt_poll_fail_ns += poll_ns;
- else
+ u64 poll_ns = ktime_to_ns(ktime_sub(end, start));
+
+ if (success)
vcpu->stat.generic.halt_poll_success_ns += poll_ns;
+ else
+ vcpu->stat.generic.halt_poll_fail_ns += poll_ns;
}
/*
@@ -3274,9 +3276,13 @@ void kvm_vcpu_block(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
kvm_arch_vcpu_unblocking(vcpu);
block_ns = ktime_to_ns(cur) - ktime_to_ns(start);
+ /*
+ * Note, halt-polling is considered successful so long as the vCPU was
+ * never actually scheduled out, i.e. even if the wake event arrived
+ * after of the halt-polling loop itself, but before the full wait.
+ */
if (do_halt_poll)
- update_halt_poll_stats(
- vcpu, ktime_to_ns(ktime_sub(poll_end, start)), waited);
+ update_halt_poll_stats(vcpu, start, poll_end, !waited);
if (halt_poll_allowed) {
if (!vcpu_valid_wakeup(vcpu)) {
--
2.33.0.685.g46640cef36-goog
Powered by blists - more mailing lists