linux-kernel - [PATCH 12/14] KVM: Don't redo ktime_get() when calculating halt-polling stop/deadline

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Message-Id: <20210925005528.1145584-13-seanjc@google.com>
Date:   Fri, 24 Sep 2021 17:55:26 -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 12/14] KVM: Don't redo ktime_get() when calculating
 halt-polling stop/deadline

Calculate the halt-polling "stop" time using "cur" instead of redoing
ktime_get().  In the happy case where hardware correctly predicts
do_halt_poll, "cur" is only a few cycles old.  And if the branch is
mispredicted, arguably that extra latency should count toward the
halt-polling time.

In all likelihood, the numbers involved are in the noise and either
approach is perfectly ok.

Signed-off-by: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>
---
 virt/kvm/kvm_main.c | 2 +-
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/virt/kvm/kvm_main.c b/virt/kvm/kvm_main.c
index 2980d2b88559..80f78daa6b8d 100644
--- a/virt/kvm/kvm_main.c
+++ b/virt/kvm/kvm_main.c
@@ -3267,7 +3267,7 @@ void kvm_vcpu_halt(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
 
 	start = cur = poll_end = ktime_get();
 	if (do_halt_poll) {
-		ktime_t stop = ktime_add_ns(ktime_get(), vcpu->halt_poll_ns);
+		ktime_t stop = ktime_add_ns(cur, vcpu->halt_poll_ns);
 
 		do {
 			/*
-- 
2.33.0.685.g46640cef36-goog