[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <f37ab68c-61ce-b6fb-7a49-831bacfc7424@redhat.com>
Date: Mon, 27 Sep 2021 17:03:55 +0200
From: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
To: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>,
Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@...ibm.com>
Cc: David Matlack <dmatlack@...gle.com>,
Jon Cargille <jcargill@...gle.com>,
Jim Mattson <jmattson@...gle.com>,
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>,
Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@...hat.com>,
Wanpeng Li <wanpengli@...cent.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,
Jing Zhang <jingzhangos@...gle.com>,
Marc Zyngier <maz@...nel.org>,
Huacai Chen <chenhuacai@...nel.org>,
Aleksandar Markovic <aleksandar.qemu.devel@...il.com>,
Paul Mackerras <paulus@...abs.org>,
Janosch Frank <frankja@...ux.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: disabling halt polling broken? (was Re: [PATCH 00/14] KVM:
Halt-polling fixes, cleanups and a new stat)
On 27/09/21 16:59, Sean Christopherson wrote:
>> commit acd05785e48c01edb2c4f4d014d28478b5f19fb5
>> Author: David Matlack<dmatlack@...gle.com>
>> AuthorDate: Fri Apr 17 15:14:46 2020 -0700
>> Commit: Paolo Bonzini<pbonzini@...hat.com>
>> CommitDate: Fri Apr 24 12:53:17 2020 -0400
>>
>> kvm: add capability for halt polling
>>
>> broke the possibility for an admin to disable halt polling for already running KVM guests.
>> In past times doing
>> echo 0 > /sys/module/kvm/parameters/halt_poll_ns
>>
>> stopped polling system wide.
>> Now all KVM guests will use the halt_poll_ns value that was active during
>> startup - even those that do not use KVM_CAP_HALT_POLL.
>>
>> I guess this was not intended?
No, but...
> I would go so far as to say that halt_poll_ns should be a hard limit on
> the capability
... this would not be a good idea I think. Anything that wants to do a
lot of polling can just do "for (;;)".
So I think there are two possibilities that makes sense:
* track what is using KVM_CAP_HALT_POLL, and make writes to halt_poll_ns
follow that
* just make halt_poll_ns read-only.
Paolo
Powered by blists - more mailing lists