Subject: Re: [PATCH 12/14] KVM: Don't redo ktime_get() when calculating halt-polling stop/deadline

From: David Matlack <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 28 Sep 2021 22:08:33 +0000

On Fri, Sep 24, 2021 at 05:55:26PM -0700, 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.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Sean Christopherson <[email-masked]>

Reviewed-by: David Matlack <[email-masked]>

> ---
>  virt/kvm/kvm_main.c | 2 +-
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/virt/kvm/kvm_main.c b/virt/kvm/kvm_main.c
> index 2980d2b88559..80f78daa6b8d 100644
> --- a/virt/kvm/kvm_main.c
> +++ b/virt/kvm/kvm_main.c
> @@ -3267,7 +3267,7 @@ void kvm_vcpu_halt(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
>  
>  	start = cur = poll_end = ktime_get();
>  	if (do_halt_poll) {
> -		ktime_t stop = ktime_add_ns(ktime_get(), vcpu->halt_poll_ns);
> +		ktime_t stop = ktime_add_ns(cur, vcpu->halt_poll_ns);
>  
>  		do {
>  			/*
> -- 
> 2.33.0.685.g46640cef36-goog
> 

_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
[email-masked]
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel