Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Date:   Tue, 28 Sep 2021 22:08:33 +0000
From:   David Matlack <dmatlack@google.com>
To:     Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com>
Cc:     Marc Zyngier <maz@kernel.org>, Huacai Chen <chenhuacai@kernel.org>,
        Aleksandar Markovic <aleksandar.qemu.devel@gmail.com>,
        Paul Mackerras <paulus@ozlabs.org>,
        Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@de.ibm.com>,
        Janosch Frank <frankja@linux.ibm.com>,
        Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>,
        James Morse <james.morse@arm.com>,
        Alexandru Elisei <alexandru.elisei@arm.com>,
        Suzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@arm.com>,
        David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>,
        Cornelia Huck <cohuck@redhat.com>,
        Claudio Imbrenda <imbrenda@linux.ibm.com>,
        Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@redhat.com>,
        Wanpeng Li <wanpengli@tencent.com>,
        Jim Mattson <jmattson@google.com>,
        Joerg Roedel <joro@8bytes.org>,
        linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu,
        linux-mips@vger.kernel.org, kvm@vger.kernel.org,
        kvm-ppc@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        Jing Zhang <jingzhangos@google.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 12/14] KVM: Don't redo ktime_get() when calculating
 halt-polling stop/deadline
Message-ID: <YVOSYaNx0vd4SYHk@google.com>
References: <20210925005528.1145584-1-seanjc@google.com>
 <20210925005528.1145584-13-seanjc@google.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20210925005528.1145584-13-seanjc@google.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, Sep 24, 2021 at 05:55:26PM -0700, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> Calculate the halt-polling "stop" time using "cur" instead of redoing
> ktime_get().  In the happy case where hardware correctly predicts
> do_halt_poll, "cur" is only a few cycles old.  And if the branch is
> mispredicted, arguably that extra latency should count toward the
> halt-polling time.
> 
> In all likelihood, the numbers involved are in the noise and either
> approach is perfectly ok.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com>

Reviewed-by: David Matlack <dmatlack@google.com>

> ---
>  virt/kvm/kvm_main.c | 2 +-
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/virt/kvm/kvm_main.c b/virt/kvm/kvm_main.c
> index 2980d2b88559..80f78daa6b8d 100644
> --- a/virt/kvm/kvm_main.c
> +++ b/virt/kvm/kvm_main.c
> @@ -3267,7 +3267,7 @@ void kvm_vcpu_halt(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
>  
>  	start = cur = poll_end = ktime_get();
>  	if (do_halt_poll) {
> -		ktime_t stop = ktime_add_ns(ktime_get(), vcpu->halt_poll_ns);
> +		ktime_t stop = ktime_add_ns(cur, vcpu->halt_poll_ns);
>  
>  		do {
>  			/*
> -- 
> 2.33.0.685.g46640cef36-goog
>