[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Z2QADxbdoYi5q9iT@google.com>
Date: Thu, 19 Dec 2024 11:14:23 +0000
From: Quentin Perret <qperret@...gle.com>
To: Mostafa Saleh <smostafa@...gle.com>
Cc: iommu@...ts.linux.dev, kvmarm@...ts.linux.dev,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
catalin.marinas@....com, will@...nel.org, maz@...nel.org,
oliver.upton@...ux.dev, joey.gouly@....com, suzuki.poulose@....com,
yuzenghui@...wei.com, robdclark@...il.com, joro@...tes.org,
robin.murphy@....com, jean-philippe@...aro.org, jgg@...pe.ca,
nicolinc@...dia.com, vdonnefort@...gle.com, tabba@...gle.com,
danielmentz@...gle.com, tzukui@...gle.com
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v2 11/58] KVM: arm64: pkvm: Add pkvm_udelay()
On Thursday 12 Dec 2024 at 18:03:35 (+0000), Mostafa Saleh wrote:
> From: Jean-Philippe Brucker <jean-philippe@...aro.org>
>
> Add a simple delay loop for drivers.
>
> This could use more work. It should be possible to insert a wfe and save
> power, but I haven't studied whether it is safe to do so with the host
> in control of the event stream. The SMMU driver will use wfe anyway for
> frequent waits (provided the implementation can send command queue
> events).
Mooh, I'm thoroughly hating that we need this -- pKVM is non preemptible
so we better not wait for too long.
I can surely figure it out from the following patches, but could you
please expand on the use-case?
On a side note I'm not too worried about the power impact of not having
a wfe in there, again we better not be spinning for long enough that
power starts to be noticeable.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists