From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S1755163AbcESPDr (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Thu, 19 May 2016 11:03:47 -0400
Received: from e06smtp09.uk.ibm.com ([195.75.94.105]:56848 "EHLO
	e06smtp09.uk.ibm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1754933AbcESPDp (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Thu, 19 May 2016 11:03:45 -0400
X-IBM-Helo: d06dlp01.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com
X-IBM-MailFrom: borntraeger@de.ibm.com
X-IBM-RcptTo: kvm@vger.kernel.org;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] KVM: halt-polling: poll if emulated lapic timer will
 fire soon
To: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>, Wanpeng Li <kernellwp@gmail.com>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kvm@vger.kernel.org
References: <1463664426-2991-1-git-send-email-wanpeng.li@hotmail.com>
 <19abf5c8-7016-45af-f0e6-3bdd161ffb38@redhat.com>
 <573DD312.4060001@de.ibm.com>
 <d7657003-0321-2e4d-6a55-bc7a70e85aca@redhat.com>
Cc: Wanpeng Li <wanpeng.li@hotmail.com>,
        =?UTF-8?B?UmFkaW0gS3LEjW3DocWZ?= <rkrcmar@redhat.com>,
        David Matlack <dmatlack@google.com>
From: Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@de.ibm.com>
Message-ID: <573DD5C9.2000108@de.ibm.com>
Date: Thu, 19 May 2016 17:03:37 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/38.7.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <d7657003-0321-2e4d-6a55-bc7a70e85aca@redhat.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-TM-AS-MML: disable
X-Content-Scanned: Fidelis XPS MAILER
x-cbid: 16051915-0037-0000-0000-000010EA03DE
X-IBM-AV-DETECTION: SAVI=unused REMOTE=unused XFE=unused
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On 05/19/2016 04:56 PM, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> 
> 
> On 19/05/2016 16:52, Christian Borntraeger wrote:
>>>> Would this work too and be simpler?
>> Hmm, your patch does only fiddle with the grow/shrink logic (which might
>> be a good idea independently of this change), but the original patch 
>> actually takes into account that we have a guaranteed maximum time by a 
>> wakeup timer - IOW we know exactly what the maximum poll time is.
>>
> 
> Yes, it's different.  The question is whether a 10us poll (40,000 clock
> cycles) has an impact even if it's sometimes wrong.

Valid question. As I said, this change might be something good independent from
the original patch. (it might make it unnecessary, though) On the other hand
I can handle ~30 guest entry/exit cycles of a simple exit like diag9c.
Needs measurement.