Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] x86/idle: use dynamic halt poll
To: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>, 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>
 <2245bef7-b668-9265-f3f8-3b63d71b1033@gmail.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 <yang.zhang.wz@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <7d085956-2573-212f-44f4-86104beba9bb@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2017 19:22:57 +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: <2245bef7-b668-9265-f3f8-3b63d71b1033@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 2294
Lines: 59

On 2017/6/23 11:58, Yang Zhang wrote:
> 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.

Hi Paolo

Can you help to answer my confusion? I have double checked the code, but 
still not get your point. Do you think it is necessary to introduce an 
paravirtual interface to expose single_task_running() to guest?

-- 
Yang
Alibaba Cloud Computing