Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-176391-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 139.178.88.99 as permitted sender) client-ip=139.178.88.99;
Date: Sat, 11 May 2024 10:34:43 +0800 (CST)
Message-ID: <202405111034432081zGPU1OUESImLVeboZ0zQ@zte.com.cn>
In-Reply-To: <Zj4qEG5QfbX4mo48@google.com>
References: Zjzkzu3gVUQt8gJG@google.com,20240510111822405PCAy6fW8F_-AfMPoCfT8u@zte.com.cn,Zj4qEG5QfbX4mo48@google.com
Precedence: bulk
Mime-Version: 1.0
From: <cheng.lin130@zte.com.cn>
To: <seanjc@google.com>
Cc: <pbonzini@redhat.com>, <kvm@vger.kernel.org>,
        <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, <jiang.yong5@zte.com.cn>,
        <wang.liang82@zte.com.cn>, <jiang.xuexin@zte.com.cn>
Subject: =?UTF-8?B?UmU6IFtQQVRDSF0gS1ZNOiBpbnRyb2R1Y2Ugdm0ncyBtYXhfaGFsdF9wb2xsX25zIHRvIGRlYnVnZnM=?=
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="UTF-8"

> > > > > From: seanjc <seanjc@google.com>
> > > > > > From: Cheng Lin <cheng.lin130@zte.com.cn>
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Introduce vm's max_halt_poll_ns and override_halt_poll_ns to
> > > > > > debugfs. Provide a way to check and modify them.
> > > > > Why?
> > > > If a vm's max_halt_poll_ns has been set using KVM_CAP_HALT_POLL,
> > > > the module parameter kvm.halt_poll.ns will no longer indicate the maximum
> > > > halt pooling interval for that vm. After introducing these two attributes into
> > > > debugfs, it can be used to check whether the individual configuration of the
> > > > vm is enabled and the working value.
> > > But why is max_halt_poll_ns special enough to warrant debugfs entries?  There is
> > > a _lot_ of state in KVM that is configurable per-VM, it simply isn't feasible to
> > > dump everything into debugfs.
> > If we want to provide a directly modification interface under /sys for per-vm
> > max_halt_poll_ns, like module parameter /sys/module/kvm/parameters/halt_poll_ns,
> > using debugfs may be worth.
> Yes, but _why_?  I know _what_ a debugs knob allows, but you have yet to explain
> why this
I think that if such an interface is provided, it can be used to check the source of
vm's max_halt_poll_ns, general module parameter or per-vm configuration.
When configured through per-vm, such an interface can be used to monitor this
configuration. If there is an error in the setting through KVMCAP_HALL_POLL, such
an interface can be used to fix or reset it dynamicly.
> General speaking, functionality of any kind should not be routed through debugfs,
> it really is meant for debug.  E.g. it's typically root-only, is not guaranteed
> to exist, its population is best-effort, etc.
> > Further, if the override_halt_poll_ns under debugfs is set to be writable, it can even
> > achieve the setting of per-vm max_halt_poll_ns, as the KVM_CAP_HALL_POLL interface
> > does.
> > > I do think it would be reasonable to capture the max allowed polling time in
> > > the existing tracepoint though, e.g.
> > Yes, I agree it.
> > It is sufficient to get per-vm max_halt_poll_ns through tracepoint if KVP_CAP_HALL_POLL
> > is used as the unique setting interface.
> >
> > Do you consider it is worth to provide a setting interface other than KVP_CAP_HALL_POLL?