From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC] kvm: x86: add halt_poll module parameter
Date: Thu, 05 Feb 2015 14:23:00 -0500
Message-ID: <54D3C314.3070903@redhat.com>
References: <1423152325-5094-1-git-send-email-pbonzini@redhat.com> <54D3BC94.9010007@siemens.com> <54D3C296.7030207@redhat.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-15
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: rkrcmar@redhat.com, mtosatti@redhat.com
To: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>,
	Jan Kiszka <jan.kiszka@siemens.com>,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kvm@vger.kernel.org
Return-path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
In-Reply-To: <54D3C296.7030207@redhat.com>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-Id: kvm.vger.kernel.org

On 02/05/2015 02:20 PM, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> 
> 
> On 05/02/2015 19:55, Jan Kiszka wrote:
>>> This patch introduces a new module parameter for the KVM module; when it
>>> is present, KVM attempts a bit of polling on every HLT before scheduling
>>> itself out via kvm_vcpu_block.
>>
>> Wouldn't it be better to tune this on a per-VM basis? Think of mixed
>> workloads with some latency-sensitive and some standard VMs.
> 
> Yes, but:
> 
> 1) this turned out to be very cheap, so a per-host tunable is not too bad;
> 
> 2) it also affects only very few workloads (for example network
> workloads can already do polling in the guest) so it only affects few
> people;
> 
> 3) long term anyway we want it to auto tune, which is better than tuning
> it per-VM.

We may want to auto tune it per VM.

However, if we make auto tuning work well, I do not
think we want to expose a user visible tunable per
VM, and commit to keeping that kind of interface
around forever.