From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Paolo Bonzini Subject: Re: [PATCH/RFC] KVM: halt_polling: provide a way to qualify wakeups during poll Date: Tue, 10 May 2016 15:54:40 +0200 Message-ID: <5731E820.1020601@redhat.com> References: <1462185753-14634-1-git-send-email-borntraeger@de.ibm.com> <57284C99.6090307@de.ibm.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Cc: =?UTF-8?B?UmFkaW0gS3LEjW3DocWZ?= , KVM , Cornelia Huck , linux-s390 , Jens Freimann , David Hildenbrand To: Christian Borntraeger , Wanpeng Li Return-path: Received: from mail-wm0-f65.google.com ([74.125.82.65]:33803 "EHLO mail-wm0-f65.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751594AbcEJNyp (ORCPT ); Tue, 10 May 2016 09:54:45 -0400 In-Reply-To: <57284C99.6090307@de.ibm.com> Sender: kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On 03/05/2016 09:00, Christian Borntraeger wrote: >>> >> + 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? I think this is okay as is. Paolo