DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mx1.redhat.com 05F73624B1
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] x86/idle: use dynamic halt poll
To: Yang Zhang <yang.zhang.wz@gmail.com>, tglx@linutronix.de,
        mingo@redhat.com, hpa@zytor.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
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>
 <7d085956-2573-212f-44f4-86104beba9bb@gmail.com>
From: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>
Message-ID: <fd7acd49-9d37-4495-79cd-250e3b54cac2@redhat.com>
Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2017 14:07:56 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/52.2.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <7d085956-2573-212f-44f4-86104beba9bb@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1044
Lines: 24


On 27/06/2017 13:22, Yang Zhang wrote:
>>>
>>> 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.
> 
> 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?

I think vcpu_is_preempted is a good enough replacement.

Paolo