From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Takuya Yoshikawa <takuya.yoshikawa@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] KVM: Don't use vcpu->requests for steal time accounting
Date: Sat, 15 Dec 2012 00:12:08 +0900
Message-ID: <20121215001208.de27019a1768bbe6b406b6dd@gmail.com>
References: <20121214193718.efd714cf.yoshikawa_takuya_b1@lab.ntt.co.jp>
	<20121214112815.GM29003@redhat.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: Takuya Yoshikawa <yoshikawa_takuya_b1@lab.ntt.co.jp>,
	mtosatti@redhat.com, kvm@vger.kernel.org
To: Gleb Natapov <gleb@redhat.com>
Return-path: <kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: from mail-pb0-f46.google.com ([209.85.160.46]:35454 "EHLO
	mail-pb0-f46.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1755524Ab2LNPMM (ORCPT <rfc822;kvm@vger.kernel.org>);
	Fri, 14 Dec 2012 10:12:12 -0500
Received: by mail-pb0-f46.google.com with SMTP id wy7so2454393pbc.19
        for <kvm@vger.kernel.org>; Fri, 14 Dec 2012 07:12:11 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <20121214112815.GM29003@redhat.com>
Sender: kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <kvm.vger.kernel.org>

On Fri, 14 Dec 2012 13:28:15 +0200
Gleb Natapov <gleb@redhat.com> wrote:

> On Fri, Dec 14, 2012 at 07:37:18PM +0900, Takuya Yoshikawa wrote:
> > We can check if accum_steal has any positive value instead of using
> > KVM_REQ_STEAL_UPDATE bit in vcpu->requests; and this is the way we
> > usually do for accounting for something in the kernel.
> > 
> Now you added check that will be done on each guest entry, requests
> mechanism prevents that.

Yes, +1 "if" for the case we have nothing in requests.

I'm not sure if setting and clearing a bit for that minor
optimization is worth it.

Thanks,
	Takuya