From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] KVM: Tie MWAIT/HLT/PAUSE interception to initially
 disabled capabilities
Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2017 02:24:13 +0200
Message-ID: <20171129022129-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org>
References: <1511615373-32615-1-git-send-email-jschoenh@amazon.de>
 <a3c80a22-ff69-fa51-ea90-48f039eb449a@redhat.com>
 <b2cca09c-65c4-6586-7ab9-82128f8010eb@amazon.de>
 <8971d9e0-388c-9934-1ab2-33508cbbeb8f@redhat.com>
 <20171128160528-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org>
 <e61d93f0-17d9-d182-83ae-b7165ae3dcb0@redhat.com>
 <20171129021958-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Cc: Jan =?iso-8859-1?Q?H=2E_Sch=F6nherr?= <jschoenh@amazon.de>,
        Radim =?utf-8?B?S3LEjW3DocWZ?= <rkrcmar@redhat.com>,
        Joerg Roedel <joro@8bytes.org>,
        KarimAllah Ahmed <karahmed@amazon.de>, kvm@vger.kernel.org
To: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>
Return-path: <kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:53600 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com"
        rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
        id S1751722AbdK2AYQ (ORCPT <rfc822;kvm@vger.kernel.org>);
        Tue, 28 Nov 2017 19:24:16 -0500
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20171129021958-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org>
Sender: kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <kvm.vger.kernel.org>

On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 02:20:34AM +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 01:07:32AM +0100, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> > On 28/11/2017 15:08, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > > I think guests still want some way to halt when
> > > giving up CPU for a long time.
> > > 
> > > If you are not worried about guests entering low power states,
> > > then you only need MWAIT and maybe PAUSE.
> > > 
> > > HLT within guest only makes sense if you do not want to
> > > allow guest to enter power state.
> > > 
> > > If you don't exit on any of these, you want some other way
> > > to actually halt the VCPU.
> > 
> > If you want to do something in userspace, send a signal.  Otherwise, it
> > doesn't really matter (if you have a dedicated physical CPU) whether the
> > task is runnable or not, as long as the CPU isn't in C0.
> > 
> > Paolo
> 
> If VCPU wants to give up its timeslice, how is it supposed to do it
> if all exits are blocked?

All this doesn't mean the patch can't be applied. But I think
it would be handy to add another way to exit to host
and stop until an interrupt. E.g. an access to a special
address could do it.

> -- 
> MST