public inbox for kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@redhat.com>
To: Piotr Zarycki <piotr.zarycki@gmail.com>, kvm@vger.kernel.org
Cc: seanjc@google.com, pbonzini@redhat.com, shuah@kernel.org,
	linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org,
	Piotr Zarycki <piotr.zarycki@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] KVM: selftests: hyperv_tlb_flush: replace NOP loop with udelay()
Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2026 14:36:17 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <87v7djgoji.fsf@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20260421172953.191345-1-piotr.zarycki@gmail.com>

Piotr Zarycki <piotr.zarycki@gmail.com> writes:

> Replace the open-coded NOP loop with udelay() which was added to KVM
> selftests in commit 6b878cbb87bf ("KVM: selftests: Add guest udelay()
> utility for x86"). The NOP loop is CPU speed dependent while udelay()
> provides a deterministic delay regardless of host CPU frequency.
>
> Signed-off-by: Piotr Zarycki <piotr.zarycki@gmail.com>
> ---
>  tools/testing/selftests/kvm/x86/hyperv_tlb_flush.c | 8 +-------
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 7 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/x86/hyperv_tlb_flush.c b/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/x86/hyperv_tlb_flush.c
> index c542cc4762b1..68ebd790ff41 100644
> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/x86/hyperv_tlb_flush.c
> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/x86/hyperv_tlb_flush.c
> @@ -141,15 +141,9 @@ static void swap_two_test_pages(vm_paddr_t pte_gva1, vm_paddr_t pte_gva2)
>  	*(uint64_t *)pte_gva2 = tmp;
>  }
>  
> -/*
> - * TODO: replace the silly NOP loop with a proper udelay() implementation.
> - */
>  static inline void do_delay(void)
>  {
> -	int i;
> -
> -	for (i = 0; i < 1000000; i++)
> -		asm volatile("nop");
> +	udelay(100);
>  }
>  
>  /*

Oh, I completely forgot I added the TODO :-) Thanks for the patch! I
also gave it a spin and it looks like rdtsc() from udelay() doesn't
hurt.

Personally, I belive we should now just drop the whole do_delay()
function and use udelay(100) instead. We have only two call sites and
there's no strict requirement that the delay time should match. 

In any case,

Reviewed-by: Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@redhat.com>

-- 
Vitaly


  parent reply	other threads:[~2026-04-22 12:36 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2026-04-21 17:29 [PATCH] KVM: selftests: hyperv_tlb_flush: replace NOP loop with udelay() Piotr Zarycki
2026-04-21 20:10 ` Dan Carpenter
2026-04-22  9:13   ` Piotr Zarycki
2026-04-22 12:36 ` Vitaly Kuznetsov [this message]
2026-04-22 13:03   ` [PATCH v2] " Piotr Zarycki

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=87v7djgoji.fsf@redhat.com \
    --to=vkuznets@redhat.com \
    --cc=kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=kvm@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=pbonzini@redhat.com \
    --cc=piotr.zarycki@gmail.com \
    --cc=seanjc@google.com \
    --cc=shuah@kernel.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox