Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754287AbdFWD6i (ORCPT ); Thu, 22 Jun 2017 23:58:38 -0400 Received: from mail-oi0-f65.google.com ([209.85.218.65]:36597 "EHLO mail-oi0-f65.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754265AbdFWD6e (ORCPT ); Thu, 22 Jun 2017 23:58:34 -0400 Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] x86/idle: use dynamic halt poll To: Paolo Bonzini , tglx@linutronix.de, mingo@redhat.com, hpa@zytor.com References: <1498130534-26568-1-git-send-email-root@ip-172-31-39-62.us-west-2.compute.internal> <1498130534-26568-3-git-send-email-root@ip-172-31-39-62.us-west-2.compute.internal> <4444ffc8-9e7b-5bd2-20da-af422fe834cc@redhat.com> Cc: x86@kernel.org, corbet@lwn.net, tony.luck@intel.com, bp@alien8.de, peterz@infradead.org, mchehab@kernel.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org, krzk@kernel.org, jpoimboe@redhat.com, luto@kernel.org, borntraeger@de.ibm.com, thgarnie@google.com, rgerst@gmail.com, minipli@googlemail.com, douly.fnst@cn.fujitsu.com, nicstange@gmail.com, fweisbec@gmail.com, dvlasenk@redhat.com, bristot@redhat.com, yamada.masahiro@socionext.com, mika.westerberg@linux.intel.com, yu.c.chen@intel.com, aaron.lu@intel.com, rostedt@goodmis.org, me@kylehuey.com, len.brown@intel.com, prarit@redhat.com, hidehiro.kawai.ez@hitachi.com, fengtiantian@huawei.com, pmladek@suse.com, jeyu@redhat.com, Larry.Finger@lwfinger.net, zijun_hu@htc.com, luisbg@osg.samsung.com, johannes.berg@intel.com, niklas.soderlund+renesas@ragnatech.se, zlpnobody@gmail.com, adobriyan@gmail.com, fgao@48lvckh6395k16k5.yundunddos.com, ebiederm@xmission.com, subashab@codeaurora.org, arnd@arndb.de, matt@codeblueprint.co.uk, mgorman@techsingularity.net, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, linux-edac@vger.kernel.org, kvm@vger.kernel.org From: Yang Zhang Message-ID: <2245bef7-b668-9265-f3f8-3b63d71b1033@gmail.com> Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2017 11:58:15 +0800 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.8.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <4444ffc8-9e7b-5bd2-20da-af422fe834cc@redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1991 Lines: 55 On 2017/6/22 19:51, Paolo Bonzini wrote: > > > On 22/06/2017 13:22, root wrote: >> ============================================================== >> >> +poll_grow: (X86 only) >> + >> +This parameter is multiplied in the grow_poll_ns() to increase the poll time. >> +By default, the values is 2. >> + >> +============================================================== >> +poll_shrink: (X86 only) >> + >> +This parameter is divided in the shrink_poll_ns() to reduce the poll time. >> +By default, the values is 2. > > Even before starting the debate on whether this is a good idea or a bad > idea, KVM reduces the polling value to the minimum (10 us) by default I noticed it. It looks like the logic inside KVM is more reasonable. I will do more testing to compare the two. > when polling fails. Also, it shouldn't be bound to > CONFIG_HYPERVISOR_GUEST, since there's nothing specific to virtual > machines here. Yes. The original idea to use CONFIG_HYPERVISOR_GUEST because this mechanism will only helpful inside VM. But as Thomas mentioned on other thread it is wrong to use it since most distribution kernel will set it to yes and still affect the bare metal. I will integrate it with paravirtualizaion part as you suggested in below. > > Regarding the good/bad idea part, KVM's polling is made much more > acceptable by single_task_running(). At least you need to integrate it > with paravirtualization. If the VM is scheduled out, you shrink the > polling period. There is already vcpu_is_preempted for this, it is used > by mutexes. I have considered single_task_running() before. But since there is no such paravirtual interface currently and i am not sure whether it is a information leak from host if introducing such interface, so i didn't do it. Do you mean vcpu_is_preempted can do the same thing? I check the code and seems it only tells whether the VCPU is scheduled out or not which cannot satisfy the needs. > > Paolo > -- Yang Alibaba Cloud Computing