Re: [PATCH v2 16/43] KVM: Don't redo ktime_get() when calculating halt-polling stop/deadline
Paolo Bonzini <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | org.kernel.vger.kvm-ppc,dev.linux.lists.kvmarm,org.infradead.lists.kvm-riscv,org.infradead.lists.linux-arm-kernel,org.infradead.lists.linux-riscv,org.kernel.vger.kvm,org.kernel.vger.linux-kernel,org.kernel.vger.linux-mips |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
On 09/10/21 04:12, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> Calculate the halt-polling "stop" time using "cur" instead of redoing
> ktime_get(). In the happy case where hardware correctly predicts
> do_halt_poll, "cur" is only a few cycles old. And if the branch is
> mispredicted, arguably that extra latency should count toward the
> halt-polling time.
>
> In all likelihood, the numbers involved are in the noise and either
> approach is perfectly ok.
Using "start" makes the change even more obvious, so:
Calculate the halt-polling "stop" time using "start" instead of redoing
ktime_get(). In practice, the numbers involved are in the noise (e.g.,
in the happy case where hardware correctly predicts do_halt_poll and
there are no interrupts, "start" is probably only a few cycles old)
and either approach is perfectly ok. But it's more precise to count
any extra latency toward the halt-polling time.
Paolo