[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <3a0c3397302d59ea313e079435a18bf1b9a43474.camel@redhat.com>
Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2021 17:35:45 +0300
From: Maxim Levitsky <mlevitsk@...hat.com>
To: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>,
Marc Zyngier <maz@...nel.org>,
Huacai Chen <chenhuacai@...nel.org>,
Aleksandar Markovic <aleksandar.qemu.devel@...il.com>,
Paul Mackerras <paulus@...abs.org>,
Anup Patel <anup.patel@....com>,
Paul Walmsley <paul.walmsley@...ive.com>,
Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@...belt.com>,
Albert Ou <aou@...s.berkeley.edu>,
Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@...ibm.com>,
Janosch Frank <frankja@...ux.ibm.com>
Cc: James Morse <james.morse@....com>,
Alexandru Elisei <alexandru.elisei@....com>,
Suzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@....com>,
Atish Patra <atish.patra@....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, kvm-riscv@...ts.infradead.org,
linux-riscv@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
David Matlack <dmatlack@...gle.com>,
Oliver Upton <oupton@...gle.com>,
Jing Zhang <jingzhangos@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 16/43] KVM: Don't redo ktime_get() when calculating
halt-polling stop/deadline
On Mon, 2021-10-25 at 16:26 +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> On 09/10/21 04:12, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> > 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.
>
> Using "start" makes the change even more obvious, so:
>
> Calculate the halt-polling "stop" time using "start" instead of redoing
> ktime_get(). In practice, the numbers involved are in the noise (e.g.,
> in the happy case where hardware correctly predicts do_halt_poll and
> there are no interrupts, "start" is probably only a few cycles old)
> and either approach is perfectly ok. But it's more precise to count
> any extra latency toward the halt-polling time.
>
> Paolo
>
Agreed.
Reviewed-by: Maxim Levitsky <mlevitsk@...hat.com>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists