DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mx1.redhat.com CDB5E7AE9E
From: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 6/6] KVM: perform a wake_up in kvm_make_all_cpus_request
To: =?UTF-8?B?UmFkaW0gS3LEjW3DocWZ?= <rkrcmar@redhat.com>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kvm@vger.kernel.org
References: <20170406202056.18379-1-rkrcmar@redhat.com>
 <20170406202056.18379-7-rkrcmar@redhat.com>
Cc: Christoffer Dall <cdall@linaro.org>, Andrew Jones <drjones@redhat.com>,
        Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@arm.com>,
        Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@de.ibm.com>,
        Cornelia Huck <cornelia.huck@de.ibm.com>,
        James Hogan <james.hogan@imgtec.com>,
        Paul Mackerras <paulus@ozlabs.org>
Message-ID: <3c004ba0-cf01-2fab-b68e-b135689c5dee@redhat.com>
Date: Tue, 11 Apr 2017 16:55:57 +0800
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/45.8.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20170406202056.18379-7-rkrcmar@redhat.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 535
Lines: 19


On 07/04/2017 04:20, Radim Krčmář wrote:
> I think that most requests do not need the wake up, so we would flip the
> bit then.

True.  I may need a bit more convincing, but let's see the patches:

- point against: no wakeup is a bug, possibly hard to find, while an
extra wakeup is just annoying.

- point in favor: the same argument (multiplied by over 9000) would
apply to a wait flag in the request number, but it would be obviously
stupid to add a no_wait flag to all requests except the couple that
need it.

Thanks,

Paolo