From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@de.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] KVM: halt-polling: poll if emulated lapic timer will
 fire soon
Date: Thu, 19 May 2016 17:03:37 +0200
Message-ID: <573DD5C9.2000108@de.ibm.com>
References: <1463664426-2991-1-git-send-email-wanpeng.li@hotmail.com>
 <19abf5c8-7016-45af-f0e6-3bdd161ffb38@redhat.com>
 <573DD312.4060001@de.ibm.com>
 <d7657003-0321-2e4d-6a55-bc7a70e85aca@redhat.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: Wanpeng Li <wanpeng.li@hotmail.com>,
	=?UTF-8?B?UmFkaW0gS3LEjW3DocWZ?= <rkrcmar@redhat.com>,
	David Matlack <dmatlack@google.com>
To: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>,
	Wanpeng Li <kernellwp@gmail.com>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	kvm@vger.kernel.org
Return-path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
In-Reply-To: <d7657003-0321-2e4d-6a55-bc7a70e85aca@redhat.com>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-Id: kvm.vger.kernel.org

On 05/19/2016 04:56 PM, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> 
> 
> On 19/05/2016 16:52, Christian Borntraeger wrote:
>>>> Would this work too and be simpler?
>> Hmm, your patch does only fiddle with the grow/shrink logic (which might
>> be a good idea independently of this change), but the original patch 
>> actually takes into account that we have a guaranteed maximum time by a 
>> wakeup timer - IOW we know exactly what the maximum poll time is.
>>
> 
> Yes, it's different.  The question is whether a 10us poll (40,000 clock
> cycles) has an impact even if it's sometimes wrong.

Valid question. As I said, this change might be something good independent from
the original patch. (it might make it unnecessary, though) On the other hand
I can handle ~30 guest entry/exit cycles of a simple exit like diag9c.
Needs measurement.