[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <YVNmkuaUYwYvlbaY@google.com>
Date: Tue, 28 Sep 2021 19:01:38 +0000
From: David Matlack <dmatlack@...gle.com>
To: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>
Cc: 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>,
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>,
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,
Jing Zhang <jingzhangos@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 03/14] KVM: Refactor and document halt-polling stats
update helper
On Fri, Sep 24, 2021 at 05:55:17PM -0700, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> 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>
Reviewed-by: David Matlack <dmatlack@...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