From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@de.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH/RFC] KVM: halt_polling: provide a way to qualify wakeups
 during poll
Date: Tue, 3 May 2016 09:00:41 +0200
Message-ID: <57284C99.6090307@de.ibm.com>
References: <1462185753-14634-1-git-send-email-borntraeger@de.ibm.com>
 <CANRm+Cx6LXcr-PUYQZAV0TB13K-VW-=jwQF_ZM6F=COxQFoM0Q@mail.gmail.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>,
	=?UTF-8?B?UmFkaW0gS3LEjW3DocWZ?= <rkrcmar@redhat.com>,
	KVM <kvm@vger.kernel.org>,
	Cornelia Huck <cornelia.huck@de.ibm.com>,
	linux-s390 <linux-s390@vger.kernel.org>,
	Jens Freimann <jfrei@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	David Hildenbrand <dahi@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Wanpeng Li <kernellwp@gmail.com>
Return-path: <kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: from e06smtp13.uk.ibm.com ([195.75.94.109]:39077 "EHLO
	e06smtp13.uk.ibm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1751033AbcECHLQ (ORCPT <rfc822;kvm@vger.kernel.org>);
	Tue, 3 May 2016 03:11:16 -0400
Received: from localhost
	by e06smtp13.uk.ibm.com with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted
	for <kvm@vger.kernel.org> from <borntraeger@de.ibm.com>;
	Tue, 3 May 2016 08:11:14 +0100
In-Reply-To: <CANRm+Cx6LXcr-PUYQZAV0TB13K-VW-=jwQF_ZM6F=COxQFoM0Q@mail.gmail.com>
Sender: kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <kvm.vger.kernel.org>

On 05/03/2016 07:42 AM, Wanpeng Li wrote:
> 2016-05-02 18:42 GMT+08:00 Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@de.ibm.com>:
> [...]
>> diff --git a/virt/kvm/kvm_main.c b/virt/kvm/kvm_main.c
>> index 9102ae1..d63ea60 100644
>> --- a/virt/kvm/kvm_main.c
>> +++ b/virt/kvm/kvm_main.c
>> @@ -2008,7 +2008,8 @@ void kvm_vcpu_block(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
>>                          * arrives.
>>                          */
>>                         if (kvm_vcpu_check_block(vcpu) < 0) {
>> -                               ++vcpu->stat.halt_successful_poll;
>> +                               if (vcpu_valid_wakeup(vcpu))
>> +                                       ++vcpu->stat.halt_successful_poll;
>>                                 goto out;
>>                         }
>>                         cur = ktime_get();
>> @@ -2038,14 +2039,16 @@ out:
>>                 if (block_ns <= vcpu->halt_poll_ns)
>>                         ;
>>                 /* we had a long block, shrink polling */
>> -               else if (vcpu->halt_poll_ns && block_ns > halt_poll_ns)
>> +               else if (!vcpu_valid_wakeup(vcpu) ||
>> +                       (vcpu->halt_poll_ns && block_ns > halt_poll_ns))
>>                         shrink_halt_poll_ns(vcpu);
>>                 /* we had a short halt and our poll time is too small */
>>                 else if (vcpu->halt_poll_ns < halt_poll_ns &&
>> -                       block_ns < halt_poll_ns)
>> +                       block_ns < halt_poll_ns && vcpu_valid_wakeup(vcpu))
>>                         grow_halt_poll_ns(vcpu);
>>         } else
>>                 vcpu->halt_poll_ns = 0;
>> +       vcpu_reset_wakeup(vcpu);
> 
> Why mark the next wakeup as a non-sucessful poll?

It is basically only used for s390 and used as a mean to implement the "default off,
only on for selected cases". But yes, if somebody else wants to use it this might 
need to be changed.
So what about changing this into
kvm_arch_vcpu_block_finish(vcpu)
which is a reset on s390 and a no for others?

Christian